Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

2016 ballot measure media endorsements

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
BallotMeasureFinal badge.jpg
2025 ballot measures
Years
2009 • 2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024 • 2023 • 2025 • 2026

In 2016, 69 statewide ballot measures were certified for the ballot in 35 states. The following page lists media outlets that weighed in on specific 2016 ballot measures, broken out by state and by measure.

If you know of an editorial not listed below, please contact editor@ballotpedia.org.

In this page, Ballotpedia includes the official positions of the editorial boards of media outlets. It does not feature opinion pieces or guest commentary here. For lists of supporters and opponents, as well as arguments for and against ballot measures, click on the link for the ballot measure you are interested in.

Overview

Editorials on recreational marijuana

As of November 7, 2016, Ballotpedia had found 38 media editorial endorsements of recreational marijuana initiatives. Of the 38 endorsements, 21 recommended "Yes" votes on measures legalizing recreational marijuana and 17 recommended "No" votes. Nearly two-thirds of the editorial endorsements addressed California Proposition 64. Editorials are split on Proposition 64, with 14 supporting and 10 opposing the measure.

Editorials on medical marijuana

As of November 7, 2016, Ballotpedia had found 13 media editorial endorsements of medical marijuana initiatives. Of the 13 endorsements, all but two recommended "Yes" votes. Eleven of the editorial endorsements addressed Florida Amendment 2. A majority of editorials favored Amendment 2, with nine supporting and two opposing the initiative.

Editorials on minimum wage increases

As of November 7, 2016, Ballotpedia had found 23 media editorial endorsements of initiatives increasing the minimum wage. Of the 23 endorsements, nine recommended voting "Yes" to increase the minimum wage and 14 recommended voting "No." Arizona Proposition 206, Colorado Amendment 70, and Maine Question 4 were designed to increase the minimum wage to $12 per hour. Washington Initiative 1433 would increase the state minimum wage to $13.50 per hour.

Editorials on firearms regulations

As of November 7, 2016, Ballotpedia had found 27 media editorial endorsements of initiatives regulating firearms. Of the 27 endorsements, 19 recommended "Yes" votes to further regulate firearms in their state and eight recommended "No" votes. In Nevada, media editorial endorsements were split 50-50. In California, most of the opposition coming from media editorial boards argued that Proposition 63 duplicates existing laws. USA Today endorsed all four state initiatives regulating firearms in 2016.[1]


By state

Alabama

The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Alabama with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Alabama Restriction of Police and Planning Jurisdiction in Calhoun County, Amendment 10 Approveda



  • Alabama Approval of Budget Isolation Resolution Proposing a Local Law, Amendment 14 Approveda


    • Support

    • The Decatur Daily wrote the following in support:[2]
    “

    Among the most important measures on the ballot Tuesday is Amendment 14. If it fails to pass, hundreds of local laws throughout the state are at risk. The amendment would amend the constitution to validate the local laws. [...] We recommend a “yes” vote on Amendment 14.[3]

    		”

    Opposition

    Ballotpedia did not find any editorial board endorsements in opposition to Amendment 14. If you know of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.


  • Alabama Auburn University Board of Trustees, Amendment 1 Approveda


    • Support

    • The Times Daily wrote the following in support of Amendment 1:[4]
    “

    There are two reasons voters would support this measure: 1) They believe a 30 percent or more turnover of Auburn’s board of trustees would result in some instability that would negatively impact the board’s responsibilities, which include making legal and fiduciary decisions, approving the university’s mission, strategic goals and objectives, establishing polices related to programs and services, approving the annual budget and program fees, and advising the university’s president. 2) They believe those entrusted with making the most important decisions for Auburn — a research university and one of the two flagships of higher learning in Alabama — should be selected based not solely on their merit, but should reflect the racial, gender and economic diversity of the state. We believe both of the changes that would result from the passage of Amendment 1 are valid reasons to vote for Amendment 1 on Nov. 8.[3]

    		”

    The Decatur Daily also published the same support editorial.[5]

    Opposition

    Ballotpedia has not yet found any editorial board endorsements in opposition to XXMeasureXX. If you know of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.


  • Alabama Toll Districts and Revenue Bonds in Baldwin County, Amendment 12 Defeatedd



  • Alabama Qualifying Age for Pickens County Judges, Amendment 9 Defeatedd



  • Alabama Removal of Age Restriction for Government Officials, Amendment 13 Approveda


    • Support

    • The Decatur Daily wrote the following in support of Amendment 13:[6]
    “

    Throughout the nation, people over 70 are leading corporations, practicing law and effectively serving in national elected positions. Arbitrary age limits unnecessarily restrict the options available to voters. We recommend a “yes” vote on Amendment 13.[3]

    		”

    Opposition

    Ballotpedia did not find any editorial board endorsements in opposition to Amendment 13. If you know of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.


  • Alabama State Constitutional Language Governing Separation of Powers, Amendment 5 Approveda


    • Alaska

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Alaska with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Alaska Voter Registration via the Permanent Fund Dividend Application, Ballot Measure 1 Approveda


    • Support

    • The Ketchikan Daily News editorial board wrote the following in an editorial supporting both Measure 1 and Measure 2:[7]
    “

    The statewide election will feature two ballot measures. One seeks voter approval for allowing qualified Alaskans to register to vote when applying for an Alaska Permanent Fund dividend. The other amends the Alaska Constitution, expanding the state's authority to incur debt through general obligation bonds for postsecondary student loans. [...] Alaskans benefit with both measures. To pass them requires yes votes.[3]

    		”
    • The Juneau Empire editorial board said the following in support of Measure 1:[8]
    “

    The initiative sets up a system that requires the Division of Elections to transfer information automatically from the Permanent Fund Dividend Division.It’s a one-click process that automatically registers you as an undeclared, no-party voter. If you want to join a party, you can do that at will. The important thing is that you’re registered and able to vote. There’s no more worrying about paperwork or deadlines. If you’re at least 18 and can legally get a PFD, it’ll take just one mouse-click to register to vote. In our view, that’s a no-brainer. [...] Vote yes on Ballot Measure 1.[3]

    		”

    Opposition

    Ballotpedia did not find any editorial board endorsements in opposition to Measure 1. If you know of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

    Arizona

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Arizona with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Arizona Minimum Wage and Paid Time Off, Proposition 206 Approveda


    • Support

    • Arizona Daily Sun said: "So to those who contend the government shouldn’t be meddling in the private labor market, we can only say that debate is long over."[9]
    • Tucson Weekly said: "We doubt that raising the minimum wage is going solve all our economic problems, but—as with the recreational marijuana initiative—it's a safe bet that state lawmakers are not going to make the effort to raise the minimum wage themselves. (Far too many of our Republican lawmakers don't believe in a minimum wage, period.) In fact, in this last session, lawmakers made it impossible for cities and towns to increase minimum wages in their own jurisdictions. That's rotten politics and it's time to send them a message: Stop preempting local authority or the voters will override you."[10]

    Opposition

    • The Arizona Republic said: "The notion that a large population is somehow locked into bottom wages is a misleading one. Indeed, one of the enduring built-in features of our free-market system is that wages are based on skills and workforce pool. They are not arbitrarily set. That all workers should earn a living wage is an admirable concept. But it is not one that can simply be willed into reality. It certainly should not be slapped on as a mandate. Vote no on Prop. 206."[11]


  • Arizona Education Finance Amendment, Proposition 123 Approveda


    • Support

    The Arizona Republic editorial board said,[12]

    “ The settlement deal creates momentum for continued improvements in school funding. It should not be dismissed or diminished by those who find it less than perfect.

    It is less than perfect. What isn't? But it is also a significant infusion of cash -- and an acknowledgement that schools need help. That's a tool Arizona can use.

    Rather than slam the door on what might be seen as an incomplete or flawed solution, those who have long advocated for better funding of our schools should rush in now and stay engaged. They should build on this welcome agreement by top Republican leaders that schools need better funding.[3]

    		”

    The Arizona Daily Star said,[13]

    “ Passing Prop. 123 is the only sure way to get more money into Arizona classrooms. ...

    Schools’ needs today are real. Students can’t wait years for the lawsuit to further wind its way through courts. Districts cannot find qualified teachers to hire, and when they do, low salaries and overloaded working conditions push many of them out of the profession within a few years. Median teacher pay in Tucson is about $39,000, compared with $56,000 nationwide, according to the University of Arizona MAP Dashboard.

    Many schools don’t have enough or up-to-date textbooks, technology that works or classroom supplies. “Right now Prop. 123 is the only way” to get more school funding quickly, middle school teacher John Fife told us.

    While Prop. 123 doesn’t specify that the incoming money be spent on teachers or in the classroom, schools and districts in Pima County have said they’d use it to boost teacher pay. ...

    Voters should support Prop. 123 but understand that this is the first step. Finding and electing pro-public-education lawmakers is the only way to ensure greater education funding in the long run.[3]

    		”

    The Glendale Star said,[14]

    “ Sometimes, just making a final decision about how you are going to vote on an issue comes down to the lesser of two evils. That’s a sad commentary on the present state of affairs in Arizona when it comes to education funding.

    So, it is with heavy hearts that we advise our readers to vote “yes” on Proposition 123.

    The reason we are saddened by this advice is because it speaks to the inability of our state lawmakers to reach a more viable solution to K-12 education funding. Like so many other elected officials, it seems that once elected, the one and only goal is re-election. Is there no elected official out there who could find the internal fortitude to cut something other than education funding?

    Although there are certainly arguments to be made for voting “no” on Prop. 123, there is no basis for saying the state’s permanent fund would suffer “irreparable harm.” Former U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl makes this case very well in a recent commentary published in the state’s major daily newspaper.

    Arizona is fortunate to have millions of acres of state trust land still available for conservation and for sale to the highest bidder. As the state grows, so does the value of that land. And past revenues have earned interest that bring the state’s permanent fund to a worth of around $5 billion. That’s a lot of insurance.

    But the more important issue at stake in the May 17 special election is the state of Arizona’s education system.

    There is no guarantee our legislators will get the message that they need to come to grips with the needs of our students and teachers. Is there any greater asset than a thriving, well-educated workforce? Are we willing to be satisfied with passing Prop. 123 and hoping it brings our rating on the educational assessment to a higher level? Are we destined to remain in the bottom two or three when it comes to the ranking of educational achievement?

    Our advice is that along with passing Prop. 123, we educate ourselves about our representatives. And that includes our congressional delegation. Do you keep track of how your representative votes on various issues? Probably not as much as you should. But, you are not alone. Even here at this newspaper, it consumes a lot of time to stay up to speed on our local legislators. It’s even more difficult when it comes to our representatives in Congress. We cannot watch all of the proceedings on C-Span. We have to get a newspaper to the press every week. And that is no easy task.

    But we do care about our students and the people who stand in front of them every day during the school year. We want them to enjoy their work and be fairly compensated for their efforts. Prop. 123 accomplishes that, at least for the next 10 years. After that, it up to our Legislature to finally get its act together and come up with a workable solution.[3]

    		”

    Oppose

    • An editorial in opposition to Proposition 123 was featured by Green Valley News. MaryFrances Clinton, the Issues Chair for the Democratic Women of Southeast Arizona, authored the article and argued that increased school funding should come from the state's general fund and other tax revenue rather than by withdrawing money from the School Trust Permanent Endowment as proposed by Prop. 123. She also argued that the language of Prop. 123 allowed School Trust Permanent Endowment withdrawals to be diverted to "other beneficiary institutions," which could allow the government to divert more funds away from education. An excerpt of the article is below:
    “

    Prop. 123 doesn’t just bring tricks with its trades. It transfers the Legislature’s obligation for education funding away from a general fund flush with surplus taxpayer revenue. It smells of threats to our schools. It attempts to take advantage of voters’ presumed gullibility.

    Voters beware! There must be better ways for our Arizona citizens to support their schools.[3]

    		”


  • Arizona Marijuana Legalization, Proposition 205 Defeatedd


    • Support

    • Aztec Pres said: "While it may be tempting to laugh at ridiculous arguments from the “no” side, it’s worth remembering the message may resonate with a demographic that votes. That’s why we think voting yes on Prop. 205 is vitally import to personal liberty. Whether or not you enjoy an occasional jazz cigarette, let’s end this nasty experiment with marijuana prohibition."[15]
    • Tucson Weekly said: "Is this initiative perfect? No, but it's better than the status quo. It creates a regulated system so that you won't have a pot shop on every corner. It generates tax revenues from marijuana sales that go to help with drug treatment and Arizona's schools, which could sure use the bucks. And you know what? It's your best chance to send a message that the laws against weed are archaic and unfair. It's a sure bet that state lawmakers aren't going to take any steps towards decriminalizing weed, so this is your only chance to make it happen."[16]

    Opposition

    • The Arizona Republic said: "While we believe it is responsible to explore the legalization of marijuana, The Arizona Republic opposes Proposition 205 for several reasons:
    It experiments with the health of our children.
    It is a money grab by the medical marijuana industry.
    It would set in concrete drug policy that would be hard to amend with corrective legislation.
    And there is no urgency to do this now."[17]


  • Arizona Public Retirement Benefits Amendment, Proposition 124 Approveda


    • Arkansas

    See Arkansas 2016 ballot measures for more information.

    California

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in California with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • California Proposition 58, Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education Approveda


    • Support

    • East Bay Express: "Prop. 58 will be beneficial to all students, English and non-native speakers alike, and will help them compete in the workforce where being bilingualism [sic] is crucial."[18]
    • The Fresno Bee: "The world has changed since 1998, and language instruction must keep up so California students can compete in the global economy. Proposition 58 will help."[19]
    • Los Angeles Daily News: "Today’s Americans, no matter what language may still be sometimes spoken around the dinner table, need to have full command of English as well. What was wrongheaded about Prop. 227 was its insistence that the only way to do that was for teachers to predominantly speak English to very young students who may not have a word of the language."[20]
    • Los Angeles Times: "... there's a difference between bilingual education done badly and bilingual education done right. A vast store of research shows that bilingual education, when it is well-designed and implemented, can be at least as good, and often better at helping immigrant and other non-English speaking students gain academic proficiency... And if students aren't achieving academically, Proposition 58 could be amended through a simple majority vote of the Legislature. Immigrant parents and their local school districts should be trusted to work this out together. Vote yes on Proposition 58."[21]
    • The Record: “Vote yes. This would remove barriers that have been in place for years and would allow schools to decide how to best teach English learners.”[22]
    • The Sacramento Bee: "The world has changed since 1998, and language instruction must keep up so California students can compete in the global economy. Proposition 58 will help."[23]
    • San Diego City Beat: "With growing globalization, it only makes sense to facilitate this process and encourage multilingual programs.”[24]
    • San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 58.[25]
    • San Francisco Examiner: "While preserving the priority of English language proficiency for all public school students, the measure improves how public schools work with and support immigrant children and nonnative English speakers."[26]
    • San Bernardino County Sun and The Press Enterprise said: "But we also believe it’s best to allow local districts the flexibility and autonomy to determine whether, or in what combination, English immersion and bilingual education would best benefit their students. Vote yes on Proposition 58."[27][28]
    • San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "Yes" vote on Proposition 58.[29]
    • Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "Proposition 58 on the Nov. 8 ballot would repeal Proposition 228 and restore the ability of local school districts, in consultation with parents, to offer bilingual education programs. Over the past several years, California has been increasing local control of K-12 education. Proposition 58 is another step in that direction, and The Press Democrat recommends a yes vote."[30]

    Opposition

    • The Bakersfield Californian: "One might assume Prop. 227 was an outgrowth of intolerance. But actually many supporters included Latino parents who were frustrated by their English-learner students languishing for years in bilingual classes and failing to acquire the language proficiency needed to prepare for good-paying, professional jobs. English-learners are students who are unable to communicate fluently or learn effectively in English. ... 'It’s our job to provide the language and the culture of the nation, which is English,' Noonan said. 'Why screw up a good thing? This is working. This is working so well.' We agree. Californians should vote no on Prop. 58."[31]
    • The Mercury News: "Look at Prop. 227 through the lens of student outcomes, which is the measure that counts: In just five years after its passage, the English proficiency of limited-English students tripled. And, not coincidentally, the math scores of the English-immersion students rose. It demonstrably helped students. ... Truly bilingual education has an important place in California schools. American students today should be multilingual, like their counterparts European [sic] and other advanced nations. But English proficiency has to be paramount for success in this country. Vote no on Prop. 58."[32]
    • The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Now, that dropout rate has plunged, and English-language learners in California are more likely to graduate high school than ever. Some cite other factors, but it is difficult to accept that anything could be as important as the language of instruction. Against this broad backdrop, it is hard to fathom Proposition 58, which would allow schools to teach in languages other than English without having the parental permission that is required now."[33]


  • California Proposition 64, California Marijuana Legalization Approveda


    • Support

    • The Californian Aggie: "Legalizing the use of recreational marijuana would also go a long way in helping to solve some deep-seated inequities, particularly toward people of color in the criminal justice system. Some of the worst casualties of America’s drug war have been those found in possession of marijuana, with bizarre prison sentences being doled out seemingly at the presiding judge’s discretion."[34]
    • The Daily Californian: "At this point, it’s so easy to get a medical marijuana card that most residents of California can obtain cannabis anyway. Might as well make it easier to regulate."[35]
    • East Bay Express: "Prop. 64 is a pragmatic and fair first step to legalize the plant for adults and end drug-war policies that unjustly target people of color and poor Californians. This will save the state money and generate new revenue to fund oversight. It’s the right choice."[36]
    • East Bay Times: "In this new regulatory territory, the Legislature likely will tweak the rules as needed. Fortunately, Prop. 64 permits such change. It's smart flexibility that many initiatives lack. ... Opponents will try to pick holes in Prop. 64, but the initiative is generally solid -- and long-overdue. California voters should approve Proposition 64."[37]
    • The Highlander: “This editorial board believes that legalization of marijuana is a logical decision, based on its ubiquity and comparative harmlessness when compared to tobacco products. There is simply no reason to continue enforcing antiquated laws banning this substance, when it can be utilized for positive medical purposes.”[38]
    • Los Angeles Times: "On balance, the proposition deserves a “yes” vote. It is ultimately better for public health, for law and order and for society if marijuana is a legal, regulated and controlled product for adults. Proposition 64 — while not perfect — offers a logical, pragmatic approach to legalization that also would give lawmakers and regulators the flexibility to change the law to address the inevitable unintended consequences."[39]
    • The Mercury News: "Current law lags behind societal norms. Forty-four percent of Americans polled last year told Gallup they had tried pot. Even the current and past two presidents toked, although Bill Clinton infamously claimed he didn’t inhale. Our police, judges and jailers have bigger issues than pot-smokers."[40]
    • The Modesto Bee: "But the people getting wealthy from recreational marijuana will be paying taxes. They won’t be cartel members. Authorities suspect those who kidnapped four Modesto brothers and forced them to work as slaves on a Calaveras County pot farm were cartel-connected. There are far worse stories from throughout northern California. When marijuana is decriminalized, the criminals will eventually go out of business. Polling shows Proposition 64 is entirely likely to pass. It should."[41]
    • Orange County Register: "Prop. 64 is the first step toward a rational drug policy. Prop. 64 gives California the opportunity to not only regulate the marijuana industry, but to make adjustments and clarifications when necessary. Though marijuana is currently illegal under federal law, the federal government has taken a hands-off approach to states choosing to responsibly regulate marijuana."[42]
    • San Diego City Beat: "State-governed regulation of marijuana will increase safety by decreasing business in the streets. Plus, the state will make more than one billion dollars annually and save tens of millions on criminal justice costs. It’s about time California lit up (if you’re 21 and over)."[43]
    • San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 64 and cited Dough Porter, who said, "I do see legalization as a social justice issue. Public behavior offending the sensibilities of the elites and the strong strain of Calvinist piety in the dominant culture have served as a basis for repression of minorities and unconventional thinkers in Western civilization."[44]
    • The San Diego Union-Tribune: "Proposition 64 is a policy gamble, but the downside decreases the more one looks at its basics and at how similar laws have played out elsewhere."[45]
    • San Francisco Chronicle: "One of the critical elements of Prop. 64 is that — unlike its predecessor, Prop. 19 — it preserves the right for cities and counties to add their own overlays of regulations and taxes, or even bans, on marijuana businesses. The experience of medical marijuana has shown that community standards on the scale, location and practices of distribution points can vary widely. It also would allow local governments to ban outdoor cultivation. And, again, unlike Prop. 19, it empowers employers to enact policies against marijuana use during the workday."[46]
    • San Francisco Examiner: "Prop. 64 would also potentially save thousands of people from the criminal justice system who are now incarcerated each year on marijuana-related charges. The law would insist that marijuana be used responsibly by adults. It had never made sense why marijuana was criminalized while alcohol wasn’t. Prop. 64 would correct that injustice."[47]
    • San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "Yes" vote on Proposition 64.[29]

    Opposition

    • The Bakersfield Californian: "California is not ready to legalize marijuana. No doubt, the recreational use of marijuana will someday — likely soon — become legal. But that day should not be today. The state is not prepared to become the epicenter of the nation’s marijuana industry."[48]
    • The Desert Sun: "Full legal marijuana use likely is in California’s future, but voters shouldn’t bring it about via Proposition 64. As a ballot initiative the measure has deficiencies that will be difficult to correct without a subsequent statewide public vote later. Time should be taken to craft a strong measure that helps ensure legal pot doesn’t become a state-sanctioned source of new societal ills."[49]
    • The Fresno Bee: "Our opposition is based on concerns about the measure’s timing and its potential health consequences. There hasn’t been sufficient research into the long-term health effects of using marijuana. What little we do know isn’t good. Marijuana harms developing brains. And for people predisposed to schizophrenia, the drug may trigger its onset and intensify symptoms."[50]
    • The Record: “Vote no. This is a piecemeal approach to legalizing marijuana. The state needs a comprehensive plan, if marijuana is indeed to be legalized.”[51]
    • The Sacramento Bee: "Too much of it appears commercially, rather than socially driven. It backslides from California’s leadership in the war on another product that is generally smoked - tobacco. And from stoned drivers to potent edibles that, in other states, have endangered children, it poses too many public health risks that could be headed off if we just took our time and legalized in a way that isn’t so rushed."[52]
    • Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "We urge a 'no' vote on Proposition 64. While the AAA Traffic Safety study is not conclusive, it raises a serious concern on two fronts: Will the law, if approved, be enforceable? And will it significantly increase the danger of driving in our car-dependent culture? More study is needed in these areas. Meantime, residents would best be served by avoiding the uncertain legality of 'legalizing' an illegal drug. They should instead demand federal representatives rightly air the issue – or vote them out and put in someone who will."[53]
    • Santa Rosa Press-Democrat: "But it’s not enough to warrant the acceptance of a poorly worded ballot proposition that opens the door to a number of social problems and unknowns — and potentially puts local growers at a competitive disadvantage in a world where the recreational use of marijuana is legal."[54]
    • The Porterville Recorder: "We do not see as much a problem with making marijuana legal as we do see with trying to regulate its use. Marijuana is called 'weed' for a reason. It is a weed and grows like a weed. Even those with black thumbs can grow marijuana. It is a strong plant and anyone with a back yard or a potted plant indoors can grow marijuana."[55]
    • St. Helena Star: "A majority of our board agreed that this isn’t the right time for Prop 64. California is still fine-tuning its regulations on medical marijuana, based on input from a variety of stakeholders. What kind of regulatory framework will that produce, and how might it be adapted for recreational pot? What’s the best way to keep pot-related ads from kids? How much pot can you ingest and still drive safely? How can cops measure your level of impairment in a way that will hold up in court? It’s plausible that we could have answers to those questions within the next few years. Until we do, it would be premature to impose a new layer of regulations for recreational marijuana use. We urge you to vote no on Prop 64."[56]
    • Ventura County Star: "California should lift the prohibition on marijuana. When it does, the state will immediately create an enormous and highly profitable new industry. We want to be sure we have sufficient controls over this industry and its impact on residents. Otherwise, the rules will be written by those who stand to benefit from marijuana sales, not by those who use it or are impacted by it. We urge a no vote on Proposition 64."[57]


  • California Proposition 56: Tobacco Tax Increase Approveda


    • Support

    • The Bakersfield Californian: "The present anti-smoking efforts and the tax money to support them are victims of their own success. As the number of smokers declines, so does the volume of cigarettes sold and the amount of taxes collected. Without an infusion of cash, California’s anti-smoking efforts and treatment may plateau, or even worse reverse. Californians should vote YES on Prop. 56 to maintain and expand the state’s anti-smoking and treatment programs."[58]
    • East Bay Express: "We don’t always embrace regressive taxes, but a smart thing about this $2-per-pack increase on cigarettes and comparable tax on other tobacco products is that there is a limit on administrative expenses, and it would inject nearly $1 billion into the Medi-Cal program, which provides health-care coverage to low-income residents."[59]
    • The Highlander: “It is the belief of this editorial board that the increase on the current taxes on these products will benefit public health by discouraging many people from ever starting to use them. The revenue generated by these taxes will also be used to the benefit the public more directly by funding medical care for lower-income groups in the form of Medi-Cal.”[60]
    • Los Angeles Times: "That’s too bad because tobacco taxes are really a brilliant and beautiful thing: They not only bring in revenue for government but also serve a social good in the process. On average, peer-reviewed studies have shown, a 10% increase in the total price of cigarettes will yield a 3% to 4% reduction in adult consumption — and a 7% reduction among young smokers."[61]
    • Marin Independent Journal: "A $2-per-pack tax on cigarettes and electronic smoking devices sounds like a lot. But California’s tax on cigarettes is far less than other states charge. Proposition 56 would raise the state tax to $2.87 per pack. New York’s tax is $4.35 per pack."[62]
    • The Mercury News: "The need is urgent: E-cigarettes have increased teen smoking at an alarming rate. The Centers for Disease Control reported last year that vaping by middle- and high-school students tripled from 4.5 percent in 2013 to 13.4 percent in 2014. It's an easy slip from there to tobacco, and the harm is similar. The proposition raises the tax on e-cigarettes, as well as on other tobacco products, at levels equivalent to the per-pack cigarette hike. It's way past time for California to do this. Voters should resoundingly approve Proposition 56."[63]
    • The Record: “Vote yes. Our concern is that this tax would impact poor smokers more than those well-to-do smokers, but the tax would increase funding to health programs.”[64]
    • The Sacramento Bee: "In 1988, one in four Californians smoked. That was the year voters approved Proposition 99, a landmark initiative that raised tobacco taxes by 25 cents per pack, primarily to fund what then was a unique state-run anti-tobacco campaign. It has been a public health success. Now, 12 percent of Californians smoke."[65]
    • San Diego City Beat: “Hiking tobacco taxes is a proven way to deter smoking habits, so guess which industry is against it.”[66]
    • San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 56.[67]
    • The San Diego Union-Tribune: “Giving a significantly higher percentage of revenue to anti-smoking programs would have been preferable. But especially because the higher price is likely to deter smoking — and to deter young people from starting smoking — we offer our strong support. Yes on Proposition 56.”[68]
    • San Francisco Chronicle: "The case for a specific excise tax on tobacco is overwhelming. The drafters of Prop. 56 have done a responsible job of apportioning the up to $1.4 billion in new revenue from the tax to efforts to either prevent or offset the public burden caused by smoking. The major beneficiary would be the Medi-Cal program, which would receive between $710 million and $1 billion in 2017-18, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Smaller amounts would go into education and cessation programs. It would limit administrative spending to no more than 5 percent."[69]
    • San Francisco Examiner: "Revenue from the tax would help fund physician training, prevention and treatment of dental diseases, Medi-Cal, tobacco-use prevention, research into cancer, heart and lung diseases, and other tobacco-related diseases, and school programs focusing on tobacco-use prevention and reduction."[70]
    • Ventura County Star: "Empirical evidence shows that if the price of tobacco is raised dramatically, it results in a decline in teen-age smoking, because cost is one of the primary forces controlling teens who start experimenting with smoking."[71]

    Opposition

    • San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 56.[29]
    • Southern California News Group, which includes the Orange County Register, LA Daily News, and Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Prop. 56 fails to meet these basic expectations, however. In addition to taxing demonstrably harmful products like cigarettes, the initiative imposes a new $2 tax on electronic cigarettes, which are not tobacco products and which might actually serve as a less harmful alternative to real cigarettes. Even more troublingly, the initiative does not allocate funds in manner [sic] consistent with its promise to 'save lives.'”[72][73]

    Other opinions

    • The Mercury News published an editorial on the "No" campaign's advertisements:[74]
    “ Nobody blows smoke in the face of voters better than the tobacco industry. …

    The ads are insidious. They tug at parents’ heartstrings, claiming the proposition takes money away from schools — a flat-out lie — and gives it to greedy insurance companies. In fact it goes to pay doctors to treat poor people who are newly-insured under Covered California. …

    But the tobacco industry’s despicable campaign is working. Bankrolled mainly by R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris, the No on Prop. 56 campaign has spent more than $50 million to blanket the airwaves with scurrilous ads.[3]

    		”


  • California Proposition 65, Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation Fund Defeatedd


    • Support

    Ballotpedia has not yet found media editorials in support of the measure. If you are aware of support, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

    Opposition

    • The Bakersfield Californian: "Consider the possibility of both propositions passing. The one receiving the most votes will decide who keeps the bag fees. But we should also be concerned about the legislative analyst’s conclusion that Prop. 65 could be interpreted by the courts as preventing a statewide ban. Don’t be fooled."[75]
    • Chico Enterprise-Record: "Proposition 65 is a sleazy trick offering an alternative, also funded by the plastic bag industry. … Proposition 65 was placed on the ballot by the plastic bag industry either to confuse voters or to punish grocery stores for supporting the ban. Even environmental groups think Proposition 65 is a bad idea.”[76]
    • The Daily Californian: "Who would have thought the plastic bag industry could be capable of such madness? It’s responsible for pushing Proposition 65, a confusing, deceptive ballot measure and is trying desperately to make plastic bags flow freely through the stores and sewers of California once more."[77]
    • East Bay Express: "Prop. 65 is a distraction by the awful plastic-bag industry. Vote no."[78]
    • East Bay Times: "Proposition 65 deserves consideration as one the most disingenuous ballot measures in state history. It’s crucial that California voters understand that key environmental groups oppose Proposition 65, even though it could supply millions of dollars for some of their pet causes. That’s how bad it is."[79]
    • The Hanford Sentinel: "This ballot measure is sponsored by a few large plastic bag manufacturers in Texas and South Carolina. They say they’re concerned about our environment. Raise your hand if you believe that."[80]
    • Los Angeles Times: "On the surface this measure seems to complement the environmental goals of the bag ban. But coming from the same people so desperately trying to stop the ban, the measure seems more like a cynical ploy to confuse voters or, at the very least, punish the state’s grocery stores for supporting the ban. ... The reality is that the fee for paper bags isn’t likely to be a windfall for stores that provide them. The California Grocers Assn. estimates that stores pay an average of 10 cents per paper bag. It seems reasonable for stores to recoup their cost when forced to collect a fee. The law also sets guidelines for how the money is used by grocers: to offset the cost of complying with the law and promoting the use of reusable grocery bags."[81]
    • The Mercury News: "And vote no on Proposition 65, one of the most disingenuous ballot measures in state history -- and that's saying something. The proposition requires that the money shoppers pay for paper bags in stores go into an environmental fund -- but major environmental groups actively oppose it."[82]
    • Monterey Herald: "Prop. 65 is an environmental measure in wolf’s barely disguised clothing and is directly opposed to the intentions of the ban, which was to end the reliance on disposable bags."[83]
    • Orange County Register: "No matter whether California voters are for or against the other statewide proposition dealing with plastic grocery bags on the November ballot, Proposition 67, they should vote against Proposition 65, which also has to do with the bag question."[84]
    • The Record: “Vote no on Proposition 65 and yes on Proposition 67.”[85]
    • San Diego City Beat: “This is a misleading prop put on the ballot by the plastics industry. The environmental fund is a vague proposal that would create a bureaucracy to regulate a small amount of money. Plus, grocers need the 10-cent cost tacked onto paper bag purchases so they can afford to supply the bags.”[86]
    • San Diego Free Press and OB Rag called for a "No" vote on Proposition 65.[87]
    • The San Diego Union-Tribune: “So whose argument will Californians buy? Their legislative leaders who passed and signed a statewide ban into effect two years ago? Or the plastic bag manufacturers who poured mostly out-of-state money into a campaign to have voters bag the ban? (The plastic bag industry is also financing Proposition 65 over environmentalists’ objections. Don’t be confused by that measure. Just reject it.)”[88]
    • The Sacramento Bee and The Fresno Bee: "It’s unfortunate that bag makers — most of them headquartered outside of California — would go to such trouble to confuse voters. It shouldn't be this hard to stop polluting a state."[89][90]
    • San Francisco Chronicle: "Bag makers argue that supermarkets are profiting unfairly from selling paper bags. But the statewide grocers association says the dime-per-bag charge covers their costs, with little left over. The measure plays on phony fears to discredit the overall plastic ban. Major environmental groups are shunning Prop. 65."[91]
    • San Francisco Examiner: "That might sound fine at first glance, but this measure was created by the plastic bag industry to save their livelihood in the face of Proposition 67, which seeks to ban take-out plastic bags at grocery stores, convenience stores and liquor stores."[92]
    • San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 65.[29]
    • Santa Cruz Sentinel: "Stores, however, will have to pay for changing their operation and still charge for offering reusable bags to their customers. When an issue is forced on them by government or voters, they have the right to charge for supplies. So, the real aim of Prop. 65 is to undercut grocers who are selling paper bags and thus subvert the ban on plastic disposable bags."[93]
    • Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "This initiative was a cynical attempt to turn grocers against the bag ban. It didn’t work. Grocers still support the ban, and voters should reject Proposition 65."[94]
    • Ventura County Star: "While it sounds nice, the problem is that if this passes by more votes than Proposition 67, then many stores — particularly small businesses — would be hurt because they would still have to provide the alternative bags for sale but could not keep the money."[95]


  • California Proposition 57, Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Approveda


    • Support

    • The Bakersfield Californian: "Prosecutors, law enforcement and correctional officers adamantly opposed Prop. 57. They contend it will result in dangerous criminals being released. For that not to happen, the state must enhance its prisoner rehabilitation programs that will treat inmate drug abuse and prepare inmates for honest employment when they are released. One way or another, these prisoners eventually will be coming home. Either the courts will order their release, or we can create a better system to punish and rehabilitate felons."[96]
    • East Bay Express: "Prop. 57 incentivizes nonviolent offenders to better themselves while serving time, and rewards them with early release. This saves taxpayers money and reduces the prison population. It’s sensible criminal-justice reform."[97]
    • Los Angeles Times: "It's a welcome and needed measure, although less simple than the brevity of its language or various assertions on both sides would suggest. The Times urges voters to read it, understand it, and vote 'yes.' ... In addition to parole boards, prison officials would be able to grant inmates rehabilitation credits. This portion of the measure is controversial because it appears to apply to base terms as well as enhancements, but the thinking is sound. Inmates will have new incentives to change their behavior, both in prison and after release. For many inmates, prisons will cease to be merely warehouses and may at last become instruments of rehabilitation."[98]
    • Marin Independent Journal: "Proposition 57 would provide inmates with more incentive to turn their lives around and reduce their prison stay. … The state has to do more to reduce overcrowding in its prisons. Proposition 57 is a step in that direction.”[99]
    • Orange County Register and The Press-Enterprise: "Gov. Jerry Brown sees Prop. 57 as a responsible way of not only avoiding mass releases, but encouraging those in prison to better themselves by participating in evidence-based rehabilitative programs. We agree."[100][101]
    • San Diego City Beat: “ Non-violent crimes are not always peaceful; but these people are going to be released one day regardless, and the goal is for them to leave prison a better person than when they entered.”[102]
    • The Sacramento Bee: “Implicit in Proposition 57 is that rehabilitation happens. Yes, there are risks. Future governors might scrimp on funding for rehabilitative programs. Parole authorities might grant easy release to a miscreant who goes on to commit a terrible crime. But with or without this initiative, most felons will get out of prison. Better that they earn their freedom by bettering themselves.”[103]
    • San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 57.[104]
    • San Francisco Chronicle: "So it’s all the more important for voters to see Prop. 57 clearly for what it is: a measure that will encourage nonviolent offenders to use their prison time to improve themselves."[105]
    • San Francisco Examiner: "Prop. 57 is intended to help ease overcrowding in state prisons, similar to the intention of Prop. 47 two years ago."[106]

    Opposition

    • The Fresno Bee: "Details matter – especially when seeking to rewrite our state Constitution. Proposition 57 is seriously lacking important specifics. Most blatant: Its authors did not define “nonviolent” crime. This glaring lack of precision is reason enough to vote 'no.'[107]
    • The Record: “Vote no. We do not see this as the best way to prison reform. We urge legislators to get to work to do this job — don’t leave it to the public.”[108]
    • San Diego Union-Tribune: "The central selling point of its misleading ballot description — that it would help only 'nonviolent' felons — accepts the state’s esoteric classification of many violent crimes, including rape of an unconscious person, as not being violent. Brown’s allies decry this criticism and say of course such criminals would never get early parole. But this should be established in the proposition."[109]
    • San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 57.[29]
    • The Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "Proposition 57 on the Nov. 8 ballot is another effort by Gov. Jerry Brown to rid the state of its inconvenient prison population by turning prisoners loose on the public."[110]
    • Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "The net effect, law enforcement officials contend, is that more felons will end up back on the streets, putting communities at risk. 'The impacts are incalculable,' said Sonoma County District Attorney Jill Ravitch in a meeting with The Press Democrat Editorial Board. 'It’s a frightening situation.' ... Moreover, California has already reduced its prison population by some 50,000 inmates since 2009, nearing its target goal. It’s not clear whether such a drastic change in the state’s sentencing laws is needed, let alone desired. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 57."[111]
    • The Mercury News: "California has to find more ways to reduce prison overcrowding and costs. Money that now goes to prisons could be far better spent on crime-solving or prevention. Early release for some offenders is a reasonable idea, but the strategy has to be clear. Prop. 57 is not good enough. Vote no."[112]


  • California Proposition 62, Abolition of Death Penalty Measure Defeatedd


    • Support

    • The Bakersfield Californian: "Proposition 62 would end California’s costly and ineffective death penalty."[113]
    • Chico Enterprise-Record: "If the death penalty were really a deterrent, we might be willing to give the experiment a try. But honestly the kind of person who can conceive killing someone and carry out the act isn’t likely to be swayed by the idea he or she might be put to death for it. There’s a mental process at work that’s different from the way most people think."[114]
    • The Desert Sun: "Don’t discount the odds of such an event. A 2014 study by University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross estimated that 1 in 25 inmates sentenced to death across America from 1973-2004 was innocent. If California has a death penalty, it should be made as bulletproof as possible when it comes to questions about whether an innocent person might be condemned."[115]
    • East Bay Express: "The repeal of capital punishment, a baldly barbaric fixture of the criminal justice system, through the passage of Proposition 62 this November, is morally imperative for California voters. The bloodlust of the competing measure, to expedite appeals and executions through Prop. 66, is unconscionable. One-in-ten death sentences are overturned."[116]
    • East Bay Times and The Mercury News: "Donald Heller wrote the 1978 proposition that brought back capital punishment. He now favors abolishing it. He knows that it costs California $90,000 a year more per prisoner on death row than it costs to jail our worst criminals for life. No other Western nation has the death penalty. California shouldn't share the values of places such as North Korea, China, Pakistan, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Vote no on Proposition 66 -- and vote yes on Proposition 62. Abolish the death penalty in California."[117][118]
    • Los Angeles Times: "How dysfunctional is the system? Since voters reinstated the death penalty nearly 40 years ago, 1,039 convicted murderers have received death sentences, but the state has executed only 13, in part because death penalty appeals take about 25 years, according to experts. During the same period, 104 condemned inmates died of natural causes, suicides or other non-execution means — and the system has cost taxpayers about $5 billion. Something clearly has to be changed. The answer, however, is not to speed up the machinery of death, but to dismantle it. That’s why The Times urges a yes vote on Proposition 62 and a no vote on Proposition 66."[119]
    • The Modesto Bee: "Vote for Proposition 66, and deadly mistakes will be made. Pass Proposition 62, and at least our conscience will be clear."[120]
    • Montery Herald: "The death penalty hasn’t worked, and the only success — if such a word can be used with capital punishment — is a legal industry generated among various groups that have fought it tooth and nail, rendering the sentence essentially toothless."[121]
    • Orange County Register: "While there might be value in the death penalty in the abstract, in reality a death sentence in California today is effectively, as one judge put it, 'life imprisonment with the remote possibility of death.' As such, the death penalty not only fails to serve any practical function, but squanders billions of taxpayer dollars that could be better used elsewhere."[122]
    • The Sacramento Bee: "And the questions persist about our collective willingness to carry out the ultimate penalty, about the vagaries of an imperfect justice system, and the fundamental principle we learned as children: Two wrongs don’t make a right."[123]
    • San Diego City Beat: “Capital punishment is broken beyond repair; the state has failed to execute anyone in 10 years. Taxpayers shouldn’t waste tens of millions on this system with the hope that it deters criminals. Keeping them locked up for the rest of their lives is equally effective in keeping them off the streets, but at a fraction of the cost.”[124]
    • San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 62.[125]
    • San Diego Union-Tribune: "Given this implacable official resistance to the death penalty, the wise thing to do is to shut down death row and join the other states and nations that rely on life sentences without parole to punish the worst crimes. When it comes to the death penalty, the people running California don’t want it to work. That’s why we recommend a yes vote on Proposition 62 and a no vote on Proposition 66."[126]
    • San Francisco Chronicle: "One of those measures, Prop. 62, offers a straightforward and certain solution: abolish the death penalty, and replace it with a punishment of life without the possibility of parole. The other, Prop. 66, proposes a highly complex, probably very expensive and constitutionally questionable scheme for streamlining the appeals process in hopes of shaving years off the timeline between conviction and execution. ... It’s humane, it’s practical, and it’s fiscally prudent."[127]
    • San Francisco Examiner: "Government must function to value and preserve life whenever possible, even among those who have acted unforgivably to the contrary. Beyond arguments of cost savings and critiques of a biased justice system, a civilized society must stand against institutionalized brutality and murder."[128]
    • Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "Among the 17 statewide measures on the Nov. 8 ballot are two that deal with the death penalty in California. The first, Proposition 62, would simply repeal the death penalty. It would change the sentences of those currently on death row to life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The second, Proposition 66, would revise the death penalty in an apparent bid to speed up executions through a series of procedural adjustments that we suspect would have little to no effect. It contains the clause: 'Other voter approved measures related to death penalty are null and void if this measure receives more affirmative votes.' ... We urge you to vote 'yes' on the first death penalty measure on the ballot, Proposition 62, and vote 'no' on the second death penalty measure, Proposition 66."[129]
    • Santa Cruz Sentinel: "The death penalty is on the books to be a deterrent to crime. ... For every year between 2008-2013, the average homicide rate of states without the death penalty was significantly lower than those that still permit capital punishment."[130]
    • Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "Proposition 62 acknowledges the obvious. California’s capital punishment system delivers neither swift justice nor certain closure for victims’ families. The cost is exorbitant, even by government standards. As for deterrence, states without the death penalty have recorded lower homicide rates in recent years than states with capital punishment. Repealing the death penalty would save $150 million a year, according to the state’s nonpartisan legislative analyst."[131]
    • Ventura County Star: "We urge a yes vote on Prop. 62 and a no vote on Prop. 66."[132]
    • Whittier Daily News: "Instead of continuing to tinker with and finance a failed system, California should abolish the death penalty. Vote yes on 62."[133]

    Opposition

    • The Record: “Our consensus is a no vote on Proposition 62 and yes on 66. We do not feel the death penalty should be abolished with so many on death row (whose sentences would be converted to life in prison). We do, however, concur that the process for legal challenges should not be so drawn out.”[134]
    • San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 62.[29]


  • California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures Measure Approveda


    • Support

    • The Record: “Our consensus is a no vote on Proposition 62 and yes on 66. We do not feel the death penalty should be abolished with so many on death row (whose sentences would be converted to life in prison). We do, however, concur that the process for legal challenges should not be so drawn out.”[135]
    • San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "Yes" vote on Proposition 66.[29]

    Opposition

    • The Bakersfield Californian: "The competing Proposition 66 is a flawed attempt to salvage the death penalty by speeding up its imposition. That simply won’t work and Californians will continue to waste billions of dollars on a 'penalty' that has not been imposed for years."[136]
    • Chico Enterprise-Record: "Proposition 66 doesn’t seem to be the fix that we were envisioning for the death penalty dilemma. It proposes some things that disturb us, like eliminating public oversight of execution methods."[137]
    • East Bay Express: "The repeal of capital punishment, a baldly barbaric fixture of the criminal justice system, through the passage of Proposition 62 this November, is morally imperative for California voters. The bloodlust of the competing measure, to expedite appeals and executions through Prop. 66, is unconscionable. One-in-ten death sentences are overturned."[138]
    • East Bay Times and The Mercury News: "Donald Heller wrote the 1978 proposition that brought back capital punishment. He now favors abolishing it. He knows that it costs California $90,000 a year more per prisoner on death row than it costs to jail our worst criminals for life. No other Western nation has the death penalty. California shouldn't share the values of places such as North Korea, China, Pakistan, Libya, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Vote no on Proposition 66 -- and vote yes on Proposition 62. Abolish the death penalty in California."[139][140]
    • Los Angeles Daily News: "The measure also sets an arbitrary five-year limit by which courts are supposed to decide a series of appeals. Expedience should not be the goal in a system that could potentially execute an innocent person. To date, more than 150 people nationwide have been exonerated from death row, including three in California."[141]
    • Los Angeles Times: "How dysfunctional is the system? Since voters reinstated the death penalty nearly 40 years ago, 1,039 convicted murderers have received death sentences, but the state has executed only 13, in part because death penalty appeals take about 25 years, according to experts. During the same period, 104 condemned inmates died of natural causes, suicides or other non-execution means — and the system has cost taxpayers about $5 billion. Something clearly has to be changed. The answer, however, is not to speed up the machinery of death, but to dismantle it. That’s why The Times urges a yes vote on Proposition 62 and a no vote on Proposition 66."[142]
    • The Modesto Bee: "Vote for Proposition 66, and deadly mistakes will be made. Pass Proposition 62, and at least our conscience will be clear."[143]
    • Monterey County Herald: "The death penalty hasn’t worked, and the only success — if such a word can be used with capital punishment — is a legal industry generated among various groups that have fought it tooth and nail, rendering the sentence essentially toothless."[144]
    • Orange County Register: "California has spent billions of dollars on the flawed death penalty system since 1978. Potentially unworkable tweaks to a failed system aren’t what California needs."[145]
    • The Sacramento Bee: "Proposition 66 might resolve that lethal-injection issue by embedding into law a method that courts have deemed to be constitutional. But even if it all works, Californians must ask themselves whether they want an efficient death penalty system, and all that would entail."[146]
    • San Diego City Beat: “While we would be willing to make valid repairs to the death penalty, this is an expensive, empty promise. Speeding up a complex system should render hesitation, and the proposed timeline is unrealistic. Also, there’s no clear path to obtaining lethal injection drugs right now. These changes aren’t worth the chances of executing an innocent person.”[147]
    • San Diego Free Press and OB Rag called for a "No" vote on Proposition 66.[148]
    • San Diego Union-Tribune: "We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 62 and no on Proposition 66 for a different reason that is more practical than emotional: The branches of California’s government have for decades shown they don’t like the death penalty and don’t want it to be used. If Proposition 66 were enacted, history suggests its fixes would not be executed with good faith."[149]
    • San Francisco Chronicle: "Californians have been offered two options on the Nov. 8 ballot to 'fix' a system of capital punishment that all sides agree has produced enormous legal bills, no semblance of deterrence to would-be murderers and too little justice to victims’ loved ones over the past four decades. ... The other, Prop. 66, proposes a highly complex, probably very expensive and constitutionally questionable scheme for streamlining the appeals process in hopes of shaving years off the timeline between conviction and execution. Even the most ardent advocates of capital punishment should be wary of the promises in Prop. 66. Its core time-saving provisions would reduce the number of habeas petitions and tighten the deadlines for filing (within one year of acquiring an attorney) and resolving appeals (within five years). In so doing, it brushes aside the legal and practical realities in the way of achieving any time savings."[150]
    • San Francisco Examiner: "Government must function to value and preserve life whenever possible, even among those who have acted unforgivably to the contrary. Beyond arguments of cost savings and critiques of a biased justice system, a civilized society must stand against institutionalized brutality and murder."[151]
    • Santa Clarita Valley Signal: "The second, Proposition 66, would revise the death penalty in an apparent bid to speed up executions through a series of procedural adjustments that we suspect would have little to no effect. ... We urge you to vote 'yes' on the first death penalty measure on the ballot, Proposition 62, and vote 'no' on the second death penalty measure, Proposition 66."[152]
    • Santa Cruz Sentinel: "There’s a competing death penalty ballot measure, Proposition 66, which seeks to remedy the high costs and long delays by speeding up the process of executing convicts. But while current delays are unacceptable, speed is hardly of the essence when taking a human life."[153]
    • Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "Rather than funding an expansion of the state public defender’s office, which handles almost all death penalty appeals, Proposition 66 would require all attorneys who practice in California appellate courts, regardless of specialty and training, to accept judicial appointments to capital cases. Claims of inattentive and incompetent counsel already are common in death penalty appeals, and conscripting lawyers would only invite more such challenges."[154]
    • Ventura County Star: "We urge a yes vote on Prop. 62 and a no vote on Prop. 66."[155]


  • California Proposition 63: Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban Approveda


    • Support

    • The Desert Sun: "Despite what the gun rights lobby might say, Proposition 63’s limits are reasonable as well as sensible and practical. Though these measures will not stop the next determined lawbreaker’s shooting spree, limiting easy access to bullets and boosting efforts to take guns from those who shouldn’t have them should help reduce the 33,000 gun deaths seen across America each year."[156]
    • East Bay Express: "It makes gun theft a felony, and it also requires that, if a weapon is lost or stolen, it must be reported. California is one of the states with the toughest gun regulations, and Prop. 63 will tighten up loopholes and infrequently enforced rules."[157]
    • Los Angeles Times: "Now, with Proposition 63, voters have the opportunity to impose additional restrictions. Despite a few niggling concerns, we encourage a yes vote on Proposition 63 to send a loud and clear message to the pro-gun lobby that California voters want more, not fewer, limits on access to firearms."[158]
    • The Sacramento Bee: "Proposition 63 would fix a major flaw in Proposition 47, an initiative approved two years ago, by specifically stating that theft of a firearm is a felony. This dangerous loophole allows criminals who steal guns worth less than $950 to get away with only a misdemeanor charge."[159]
    • San Diego City Beat: “This is common sense. Everybody should undergo a background check before buying ammunition, and those purchases should be tracked by the Department of Justice. Nobody should be sold large-capacity ammunition magazines. And anyone who steals a gun shouldn’t be allowed to have one. While this could be costly, it’s money well spent.”[160]
    • San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 63 and cited Doug Porter, who said, "This is all good stuff..."[161]
    • The San Diego Union-Tribune: "This editorial board thinks these are reasonable provisions that don’t infringe on Second Amendment rights and have the potential to reduce gun violence and mass shootings. Yes on Proposition 63."[162]
    • San Francisco Chronicle: "The gun-rights lobby has been trying to alarm law-abiding owners with horror stories about how Prop. 63 would criminalize bullet sharing among hunters and other shooting partners. Not true. The initiative is clear that it is illegal only if the individual sharing bullets does so with someone 'he or she knows or using reasonable care should know' is banned from possessing ammunition. The restrictions in Prop. 63 are sensible, practical, respectful of the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Californians, and in the interest of public safety."[163]
    • San Francisco Examiner: "Any measure that increases gun safety and could possibly block someone who shouldn’t have a loaded gun from obtaining one is a worthwhile effort, no matter the inconvenience."[164]

    Opposition

    • The Bakersfield Californian: "There is such a thing as 'piling on.' You see this often when public outrage collides with politicians yearning to grandstand. This is what is happening with Proposition 63, a November ballot measure that proposes to lock a package of far-reaching gun control laws into the state’s constitution. ... To a large extent, Prop. 63 only duplicates these new gun control laws. You would think the recent legislative actions should be good enough for Prop. 63 proponents. Nope. Proponents want these laws placed in the state constitution, where changes then would require a vote of the people. And some politically ambitious proponents also want personal public credit for California having the nation’s toughest gun control laws."[165]
    • The Fresno Bee: "It largely duplicates several of the laws passed by the governor and the Legislature. If approved, Proposition 63 would become part of the state Constitution, thus requiring future voter approval to tweak or eliminate gun control provisions resulting in unintended consequences."[166]
    • Orange County Register: "We support many of the components of Proposition 63. But they need to be — and many were — argued out in Sacramento by our elected representatives. That is how the process is intended to work. This is an effort by Lt. Gov. Newsom to burnish his state reputation in advance of his run for governor in 2018."[167]
    • The Record: “Vote no. Many parts of this ballot measure are positive, but this is a case of lawmaking through the ballot box. The Legislature needs to do the heavy lifting on gun control.”[168]
    • San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 63.[29]

    Other opinions

    • The Mercury News argued that gun control measures passed by the legislature would be better than a gun control ballot initiative. The editorial board wrote: "It's far better for the Legislature to pass measures like this than take chances on a gun control initiative. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon hopes that these laws will persuade Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom to yank his gun control initiative from the ballot this fall. But Newsom, who is running for governor, seems more interested in grandstanding on a hot-button issue in California than enacting good legislation. He counters that his proposition is 'more comprehensive, more powerful and more permanent than anything the Legislature is considering and can legally accomplish.' 'More permanent' is precisely the problem. An initiative can't be changed to correct problems without going back to voters. It should be a last resort when lawmakers refuse to deal with an important issue. This Legislature is stepping up."[169]


  • California Proposition 59, Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question Approveda


    • Support

    • The Bakersfield Californian: "The Citizens United decision, which in part classifies corporations as 'citizens,' giving them the ability to contribute to political campaigns, is credited with pouring special interest money into campaigns. Clearly this buying of America is a bad thing."[170]
    • East Bay Express: "American politics needs campaign-finance reform. This measure is toothless, sure. But the need for change is critical. Send a message. Vote yes."[171]
    • The Hanford Sentinel: "We agree with the argument in favor of Proposition 59, which says that unions and corporations are not people. They don’t vote. They don’t get sick. They don’t fight and die in wars. They should not be granted the same rights as people."[172]
    • The Mercury News: "Voters who believe that money is not speech and corporations are not individual people, and who want California to fight for campaign finance reform, should vote yes on Proposition 59. Unlike Citizens United, it can't do any harm."[173]
    • The Record: “Vote yes. This is nothing more than an advisory vote, so we question why it’s even on the ballot. But since it is, 'yes' is the best call.”[174]
    • The Sacramento Bee: “We weren’t thrilled, however, about cluttering the ballot with an advisory measure urging California elected officials to use their power to overturn the 2010 ruling … But now that Proposition 59 is before voters, it is worth supporting, if only to avoid sending the wrong message.”[175]
    • San Diego City Beat: “But since we don’t support corporations funneling money into campaigns, we stand by the California Democratic Party in voicing opposition to Citizens United in the hope that something is done in the future.”[176]
    • The San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 59.[177]
    • San Francisco Chronicle: "We understand why some voters will be tempted to reject Proposition 59 on principle: send a message to lawmakers to stop piling advisory measures on an already too-crowded ballot, and stop thwarting reforms such as those designed to end fundraising during peak legislative sessions and to provide greater transparency on hearings and bills. Fortunately, the latter issue is being addressed by Prop. 54, a citizens’ initiative that requires hearings to be live-streamed on the Internet and legislation to be in print 72 hours before a vote. [...] Prop. 59 would affirm this state’s commitment to genuine campaign finance reform. Vote yes."[178]
    • San Francisco Examiner: "We support this as a half-measure, even though we wish the mandate would be legally binding."[179]

    Opposition

    • The Desert Sun: "Proposition 59, however, is just a distraction from the actual business at hand in this already overwhelming election season. Shooting it down will send a message that this type of hollow, ballot-crowding initiative is anything but appreciated."[180]
    • Los Angeles Daily News: "The language of Prop. 59 raises many more questions than it answers, forcing voters to just guess as to what the First Amendment would look like after legislators were finished with it. Its guidance is vague and overbroad. It does not offer voters a law to approve, but an opinion poll."[181]
    • Los Angeles Times: "We recommend a No vote, for two reasons. First, amending the Constitution is a difficult process by design, and not every unwise Supreme Court decision justifies the attempt. [...] That brings us to our second concern about Proposition 59: Like a similar measure approved by Los Angeles city voters in 2013, Proposition 59 doesn’t specify what a proposed constitutional amendment would actually say. [...] We share the frustration over Citizens United (the decision) and 'Citizens United' (the metaphor for the outsize role of money in politics). We also recognize that the very reason we opposed placing this question on the ballot — that it’s purely advisory — could be offered as a justification for voting Yes; why not take advantage of this opportunity to 'make a statement'? Fair enough, but if that statement is: 'Amend the Constitution; details to follow,' we don’t think it’s a message worth sending."[182]
    • Orange County Register: "With its muddled advisory intent, Proposition 59 would set a harmful and wasteful precedent in the service of ill-advised constitutional meddling. These problems underscore the mischief of advisory measures. Even if well-intentioned, they can end up malicious. The First Amendment is fine just the way it is, and Californians do not need to vote on polls."[183]
    • San Diego Union-Tribune: "This editorial board offers no opinion on Citizens United, the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that Proposition 59 targets. But we think having advisory measures such as this clutters and complicates the ballot, and that anyone who doesn’t want a future in which every election has similar nonbinding, time-consuming measures should vote no. .... A yes vote isn’t just taking a symbolic but meaningless stand against a 6-year-old court decision. It’s an invitation to political strategists to aggressively push future symbolic measures onto already-crowded ballots. No thanks."[184]
    • San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a 'No' vote on Proposition 59.[29]
    • Santa Cruz Sentinel: "If you hate the Citizens United ruling, vote for a presidential candidate who will nominate Supreme Court justices who may overturn the ruling the right way. Or for legislators who will fight for campaign finance reform that will shed light on the influence of 'dark' money in political campaign [sic]. We recommend voting no on Proposition 59."[185]

    Other positions

    • Ventura County Star recommended not voting on the measure: "Our concern is our ballots already are too long. If we begin loading them up with advisory measures, they will be impossible to maneuver. We support overturning Citizens United, but we recommend you skip voting on Prop. 59. A no vote seems like it supports the decision. A yes vote is useless and would only encourage more advisory measures."[186]

    Colorado

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Colorado with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Colorado Tobacco Tax Increase, Amendment 72 Defeatedd


    • Support

    • Boulder Daily Camera‎ said: "Colorado's state tax on cigarettes was last raised 12 years ago, to 84 cents a pack. ... Colorado's price is no longer driving down smoking. For the first time in a decade, cigarette sales increased in 2015 to 194.4 million packs, from 193.2 million the year before, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment."[187]
    • Colorado Springs Independent said: "We don't care that much for "sin" taxes, but it's also hard to argue with where this money would be going, especially for mental health but also to low-income people."[188]
    • The Denver Post said: "The harm cigarettes have wrought and continue to cause is a global tragedy. Forcing consumers to rethink their habit and helping others recover from the addiction is worth the higher tax. We urge voters to help snuff it out and support Amendment 72."[189]
    • The Gazette said: "It would do so by increasing the tax on a pack of cigarettes from $.84 to $2.59. The price of a pack would rise by $1.75. It's a hit most young people, those most likely to start smoking, cannot afford. It would make cigarettes less attractive and less available. It would put an absolute limit on the number of cigarettes that users, as a collective, could afford to buy."[190]
    • Glenwood Springs Post Independent‎ said: "It’s proven that higher taxes on tobacco products reduce use. We also know that the best way to reduce health-care costs is to prevent disease rather than treating sickness after it has taken hold. Inhibiting tobacco use prevents disease and death, and saves money."[191]
    • Grand Junction Daily Sentinel said: "The current average price on a pack of cigarettes in Colorado is 84 cents, ranking it 38th in the nation for tobacco taxes. If Amendment 72 passes, the three-fold increase in taxes would still put Colorado outside the top 10. In other words, if raising taxes is the most effective way to get smokers to quit, Colorado should have already broached this subject, especially in light of policy directives aimed at making Colorado the healthiest state in the nation."[192]

    Opposition

    • The Coloradoan said: "It’s well-intended — and in fact the decision not to support the legislation was not unanimous for this very reason — but it is overly broad in its allocation of funds and misplaced as a constitutional amendment."[193]
    • Longmont Times-Call said: "In addition, the tobacco cessation programs the tax would fund, if successful, would generate less revenue if fewer people smoke. That could prompt an unending spiral of tax increases to keep such a program funded. A "no" vote is recommended."[194]
    • Loveland Reporter-Herald said: “Unfortunately, such a large tax increase is regressive, in that it affects low-wage earners much more than high-wage ones. In addition, the tobacco cessation programs the tax would fund, if successful, would generate less revenue if fewer people smoke. That could prompt an unending spiral of tax increases to keep such a program funded. A "no" vote is recommended.”[195]
    • The Tribune said: "Everyone agrees smoking is bad and lung cancer is worse. Still, we don’t support the move to hike Colorado’s cigarette tax. For us, there are too many unanswered questions about whether the money would really be spent in the way voters think it will be. We’re also not thrilled at the prospect of adding yet another tax measure to our Constitution."[196]

    Florida

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Florida with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Florida Property Tax Exemptions for Renewable Energy Equipment, Amendment 4 Approveda


    • Support

    • The Tampa Bay Times editorial board said the following:[197]
    “ The Legislature's measure on the August ballot is a clean shot, good for business, homeowners, the solar industry and the state's economic climate. It could induce big businesses — from the largest retail chains to manufacturers and shopping malls — to invest significantly in energy-efficient technologies that create jobs, improve public health, diversify and strengthen the electric grid and position the state to better address the impacts of climate change. This is a good step in fashioning a larger and smarter energy policy, and voters should support the amendment.[3] ”

    In an editorial published in July 2016, the editorial board also added the following:[198]

    “

    On the Aug. 30 primary ballot, Amendment 4 is a clear-cut win for solar. Amendment 4 is good for Florida. It was put on the ballot by the Legislature, which passed it unanimously. It quite literally has no opposition. If approved by 60 percent of voters, the tax exemptions would remain in effect for 20 years. On Amendment 4 on the Aug. 30 ballot, the Tampa Bay Times recommends voting yes.[3]

    		”
    • The Bradenton Herald editorial board said the following:[199]
    “ Voters should support this sensible start to a bona fide consumer- and business-oriented state solar policy. In fact, this legislative proposal targeted commercial enterprises and enjoys the backing of the business community.[3] ”
    • The Tampa Tribune editorial board said the following:[200]
    “ Easing the tax burden on commercial investment in solar will generate more energy and jobs while cleaning the environment. The referendum merits voters' support.[3] ”
    • The Tallahassee Democrat editorial board said the following:[201]
    “ This is the Sunshine State and solar energy is a big deal. Installing solar panels on a rooftop is expensive, to start with, and they add to the value of the properties using them. Residential systems are already exempt, so passage of the amendment would give Florida businesses the same tax break.[3] ”
    • The Orlando Sentinel editorial board said the following:[202]
    “

    The amendment's passage would encourage more businesses in Florida to generate power from renewable sources by lowering its cost, attracting more alternative-energy providers to the state — a new source of investment and jobs — and reducing pollution from the burning of fossil fuels imported from other states and other countries. Despite having the greatest potential for solar energy of any state east of the Mississippi, Florida still trails others with better policies to promote clean power from the sun. Florida needs to catch up and diversify its energy sources. We strongly recommend a vote for Amendment 4.[3]

    		”
    • The Miami Herald editorial board said the following:[203]
    “

    This measure will allow Florida to get closer to realizing the full potential of solar energy. Consumers can trim energy costs; encourage energy independence and tamp down on fossil fuels’ contribution to climate change. Amendment 4 not only would expand the use of clean energy, beneficial for Florida’s singular environment, it would add to the 6,500 solar jobs currently in the state and strengthen the economy while lowering solar consumers’ energy costs. The Miami Herald recommends YES on Amendment 4.[3]

    		”
    • The Naples Daily News editorial board said the following:[204]
    “

    Amendment 4 deserves your approval. There is widespread support for this common-sense approach that exempts businesses from paying property taxes on solar panels. Residences already are exempt from paying property taxes on solar equipment. Businesses deserve the same property tax treatment for investing in renewable energy. Why doesn’t Florida rely more on solar energy? It’s a question we’re often asked, one that leaves us without an acceptable answer. Amendment 4 is part of the acceptable answer. It deserves your support Aug. 30.[3]

    		”
    • The Sarasota Herald-Tribune editorial board said the following:[205]
    “

    Florida is significantly behind other parts of the nation in solar, in particular, and the cost-effective addition of clean energy is welcome at any scale. Florida ranks 14th among all states in installed solar capacity, despite being ranked third in rooftop solar potential. The proposed amendment was placed on the ballot by a rare occurrence in the current political climate — unanimous consent of the Florida House of Representatives and Senate. A wide range of environmental organizations supports Amendment 4. Florida stands to benefit from this proposal. We recommend voting YES for Amendment 4.[3]

    		”
    • The Ocala Star Herald editorial board said the following:[206]
    “

    The Sunshine State should be a leader in the use of solar power. Florida has the greatest solar potential of any eastern state, yet its cloudier neighbors to the north do a much better job of tapping the sun to provide electricity. Voters will consider Amendment 4 on the Aug. 30 primary election ballot. The Star-Banner recommends approval of the measure, which provides environmental as well as economic benefits.[3]

    		”
    • The Gainesville Sun editorial board said the following:[207]
    “

    The Sunshine State should be a leader in the use of solar power. Florida has the greatest solar potential of any eastern state, yet its cloudier neighbors to the north do a much better job of tapping the sun to provide electricity. Voters should stick with Amendment 4 as a real way to help the Sunshine State reach its solar potential. More must be done, but Amendment 4 would be a good step in making solar power more affordable for and thus widely used. Amendment 4 is a common-sense measure that both parties were able to get behind. The Sun endorses the amendment and encourages voters to cast their ballots in favor of it on Aug. 30 and through early voting.[3]

    		”
    • Cape Coral Daily Breeze[210]
    • The St. Augustine Record[212]

    Opposition

    • Matt Walsh, editor of The Business Observer, said the following:[214]
    “

    While Amendment 4 reads and sounds like environmental Motherhood and Apple Pie, this measure is yet another attempt by political activists to cement forever in the Florida Constitution a special benefit, to pick an energy winner over an energy loser. Solar energy, like fossil fuels, should stand on its own merit. Amendment 4 should not be in the Florida Constitution. We recommend: No.[3]

    		”

    Georgia

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Georgia with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Georgia Additional Penalties for Sex Crimes to Fund Services for Sexually Exploited Children, Amendment 2 Approveda


    • Support

    The Augusta Chronicle editorial board wrote the following in support of Amendment 2:[215]

    “

    We also recommend voting “yes” on Amendments 1 (see editorial, this page), 2 and 4. Amendment 2 would increase penalties and fees in sexual exploitation cases, and allow those and other assessments to be allocated to the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Children Fund.[3]

    		”

    Opposition

    Ballotpedia has not yet found any editorial board endorsements in opposition to Amendment 2. If you know of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

    Hawaii

    See Hawaii 2016 ballot measures for more information.

    Idaho

    See Idaho 2016 ballot measures for more information.

    Illinois

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Illinois with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment Approveda


    • Support

    • Daily Journal said: "So lock up the transportation funds. Also lock up fees collected for parks, schools, etc. Too long, and too often, people have been misled that something was going to solve all our tax problems — like the lottery — and it never did."[216]
    • The Herald Whig said: "Over the past 13 years, Illinois politicians have raided the road fund at a rate that averages nearly $500 million a year. Those dollars could have been used to build or repair roads and bridges. Thousands of construction jobs would have been created. Wages from those workers would have helped fuel the state economy. Those funds and those opportunities are gone, but voters with a yes vote in November's referendum can make sure the road fund will not be raided again."[217]
    • Quad-City Times said: "But things are that bad in Illinois. Perhaps handcuffing the General Assembly is the only way forward. Perhaps robbing the feckless governing class of options can force the necessary top-to-bottom overhaul in a state with the nation's worst credit rating. Perhaps this hope is little but a pipe dream. Either way, Illinois lawmakers haven't upheld their end of the bargain. They've taken cash intended for roads and bridges and used to to [sic] prop up themselves and the failing government they oversee."[218]
    • The Telegraph said: "Not convinced? Leave an hour early on Nov. 8 and, before going to the polls, take a leisurely ride along some of the roads in the region. This time, though, pay attention to the bumps and jolts that have become the background music to the daily task of getting around Illinois. Then remember voters are being given the power to change a practice that never should have been allowed."[219]
    • The Times said: "The ballot measure makes complete sense. It ought to be approved — by a wide margin. It also ought to serve as a wake-up call for state legislators and budget makers."[220]

    Opposition

    • Chicago Sun-Times said: "Nobody would be talking about lockboxes if our pathetic Legislature and governor would only come to terms on a new state budget that responsibly balances spending and revenue overall. No one doubts that transportation projects are in a sorry state in Illinois, with roads and highways in need of billions of dollars of repairs even as money collected from a gas tax, tolls and license fees is spent elsewhere. But the solution is a budget, not a shell game. A lockbox is nothing but an admission of failure, and we urge you to vote the idea down November."[221]
    • The Chicago Tribune said: "Yes, we wish lawmakers would stop dipping into that money. Again, that is completely within their control. But a constitutional amendment would take away the flexibility required if there's an unexpected drop in revenue, a serious emergency or a crushing recession. It would be a mistake to protect road-building at the expense of education, social services, health care and other needs."[222]
    • The Daily Herald said: "Responsible states that establish lockboxes for certain funds leave open the option of legislative action in a crisis, so that everyone who would break into them would have to be able to get permission or at least justify the action to voters. This amendment provides no such alternative."[223]
    • The Dispatch and The Rock Island Argus said: "But the Illinois Constitution is meant to be a broad document. Amending it specifically to protect one single source of funds opens up a Pandora’s Box where bad things can happen."[224]
    • The Southern Illinoisan said: "It may be tempting to vote “yes” on Nov. 8 on this constitutional amendment. After all, it sounds like a good deal. Its premise is a solid idea. We can see why a lot of people would vote for this amendment. But making it an amendment to the state’s Constitution is taking it too far. Let’s force legislators into looking into making it a law. Vote “no” on the constitutional amendment."[225]
    • The State Journal-Register said: "In other words, voters could pass this amendment, have remorse down the road and find themselves stuck with it for a long time. Let's also remember that efforts to fix a major source of Illinois' budget woes in the first place — its ballooning pension obligations — have been stymied as well by the strictness of the Constitution. ... This constitutional amendment only hamstrings our already beleaguered budget and benefits a specific industry. Voters on Nov. 8 should reject the simplistic, feel-good appeals and cast the wiser, long-term choice: No."[226]

    Indiana

    See Indiana 2016 ballot measures for more information.

    Kansas

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Kansas with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Kansas Right to Hunt and Fish, Constitutional Amendment 1 Approveda


    • Support

    Ballotpedia has not yet found any editorial board endorsements in support of Constitutional Amendment 1. If you know of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

    Opposition

    • Lawrence Journal-World and Salina Journal said:[227][228]
    “ The Constitution of the state of Kansas should only be amended when absolutely necessary to protect the rights and freedoms of its residents. ...

    The laws of Kansas are wholly adequate to govern hunting and fishing in Kansas. A constitutional amendment is no more needed to protect hunters and anglers than it is to protect golfers, stamp collectors, vintage car enthusiasts, birdwatchers or any of hundreds of other of the state’s hobbyists.

    Hunting and fishing is important to Kansas and should be encouraged. So should voting “no” on Amendment 1 on Nov. 8.[3]

    		”
    “ The Eagle editorial board has long held that the Kansas Constitution should be amended only for the most serious and pressing of reasons. The proposed amendment to establish a constitutional right to hunt and fish does not rise to this level. Though the editorial board strongly supports hunting and fishing, there is no threat to these pursuits and no need to amend our constitution.[3] ”

    Louisiana

    See Louisiana 2016 ballot measures for more information.

    Maine

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Maine with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative, Question 5 Approveda


    • Support

    • Portland Press Herald said the following:[230]
    “ We have a system that is constructed to serve a world that no longer exists. Across the nation, political parties are becoming less representative of the population, and technological advances have made it easier than ever for individuals and small parties to reach a large number of donors and voters. Mainers who are tired of campaigns like the one that is now coming to an end should mark the name of their favorite candidate on their ballots and then put their own names on a petition to fix this broken system.[3] ”
    Portland Press Herald and sister publications Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel also later said the following:[231]
    “ Parties used to play the role of consolidating opinion and building big coalitions that could win elections, but it’s unrealistic to believe that they can reclaim that role.

    We are much more likely to see competitive multi-candidate races in the future than we are to see a return of two-party dominance. Under the current system, loud voices are noticed and the ability to bring people together undervalued.

    Ranked-choice voting is the right change for Maine.[3]

    		”
    • The Times Record said the following:[232]
    “ We shouldn’t have an election when a huge percentage of people vote for a candidate they don’t think is the best one because they are afraid of the worst one getting in. Independents and third parties should have an equal shot at governance — goodness knows the two major parties haven’t done so well over the last decade or so.[3] ”
    • The editorial board for Village Soup newspapers, which include the Camden Herald, Courier-Gazette, and Republican Journal said, "We believe Maine should follow the path of the city of Portland, which elected its mayor in 2011 by ranked-choice voting, and allow this into our ballot booths."[233]

    Opposition

    The Ellsworth American said the following:[234]

    “ The concept that Maine’s state and/or federal office holders ought to be elected by a majority, rather than a plurality, may be worthy of consideration. But if citizens are committed to the idea, the first step should be a Constitutional amendment to establish such a requirement.

    Question 5 puts the cart before the horse and ought to be rejected by voters on Nov. 8.[3]

    		”

    Bangor Daily News said the following:[235]

    “ We remain unconvinced that changing the way Maine residents vote will suddenly bring all these positive benefits, just as term limits and public financing of campaigns have not dramatically altered the makeup of the Maine Legislature, how well it functions or the public’s perception of it. And, in a state where half the communities hand-count ballots, we fear voting and vote counting will become confusing, less transparent and burdensome, further eroding voter turnout and faith in our election systems and government.

    For these reasons, we recommend a “no” vote on Question 5.[3]

    		”

    The Mount Desert Islander said the following:[236]

    “ An Act to Establish Ranked-Choice Voting would institute a unique voting law used nowhere else in America for statewide elections. The proposal is cumbersome, confusing and very expensive to administer.

    Secretary of State Matt Dunlop estimates $800,000. Ballot results every general election will be delayed weeks while state troopers drive all ballots to Augusta for counting. Further, the state’s attorney finds the proposal unconstitutional.

    A “no” vote is necessary here to preclude a prolonged battle to resolve this complicated maneuver to produce “choice.”[3]

    		”


  • Maine Tax on Incomes Exceeding $200,000 for Public Education, Question 2 Approveda


    • Support

    Ballotpedia has not found editorials in favor of Question 2. Please send any information about editorials to editor@ballotpedia.org.

    Opposition

    The Ellsworth American said the following:[237]

    “ But beyond and before all that is the ballot question’s assumption that the Maine Legislature will never get its act together to fully fund the state’s obligation to its schools. We expect more from our lawmakers than that. An income tax surcharge is a poor substitute for substantive action by an informed and committed legislature, which is why we recommend voting no on Question 2.[3] ”

    Bangor Daily News said the following:[238]

    “ With passage of this referendum, Maine would end up with one of the highest top tax rates in the country. Lawmakers would likely consider themselves relieved of the burden to truly fix the inequities in the state’s school funding system. And, the divide between rich and poor schools would remain as wide as ever.

    We believe Question 2 is well intentioned, but as written, it is not the solution to real problems with Maine’s school funding system. Voters should reject it.[3]

    		”

    The Kennebec Journal and the Morning Sentinel and sister publication Portland Press Herald said the following:[239]

    “ We support a “no” vote on Question 2, an act to raise more money for schools, and we call on the next Legislature to make fair school funding a top priority next year.

    Our skepticism regarding Question 2 does not mean we doubt that schools need more money. The problem with the ballot measure is not what its supporters want to do, but how they want to do it.[3]

    		”

    The Mount Desert Islander said the following:[240]

    “ This tax would result in the second-highest tax bracket for high earners in the nation, while doing nothing to encourage new job creation, retaining physicians, retirees or entrepreneurs. School enrollments are declining, school administrative costs are rising, and this bitter pill would only assist certain school districts, not the rural communities that need financial help most. And it sets a poor public policy precedent in allowing individual constituencies to seek redress outside the comprehensive budget process.

    This question flunks the straight-face test and deserves to fail.[3]

    		”


  • Maine Marijuana Legalization, Question 1 Approveda


    • Support

    Portland Press Herald and sister publications Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel said the following:[241]

    “ We support the citizen-initiated Question 1, an act to tax and regulate marijuana like alcohol, because it would tell lawmakers to change course.

    A 'yes' vote says that there is such a thing as responsible, adult use of marijuana. The current law makes criminals out of people who are otherwise law-abiding and dumps millions of dollars into a tax-free black market. Legalization would put low-risk marijuana use on the right side of the law, and focus resources where they are more needed.[3]

    		”

    Opposition

    Sister newspapers the Ellsworth American and the Mount Desert Islander said the following:[242][243]

    “ The fact also remains that, should Question 1 be approved, Maine’s law then will be in conflict with federal law, under which marijuana remains classified in the most restrictive category of the Controlled Substances Act.

    Despite years of discussion, too many unanswered questions remain regarding the societal impact that will result from legalizing recreational use of marijuana. Come November, voters should turn thumbs down on the proposal.[3]

    		”

    Bangor Daily News said the following:[244]

    “ Maine is in the midst of a deadly addiction crisis that will likely kill at least one Mainer per day this year. At the same time, the state’s public health and addiction treatment systems have been decimated by an administration that cares more about punishment than prevention, intervention and rehabilitation.

    Now is not the time to exacerbate these problems by legalizing marijuana. We recommend a 'no' vote on Question 1.[3]

    		”

    Maryland

    See Maryland 2016 ballot measures for more information.

    Massachusetts

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Massachusetts with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Massachusetts Authorization of a Second Slots Location, Question 1 Defeatedd


    • Opposition

    • The Lowell Sun wrote the following in opposition to Question 1:[245]
    “

    We might be able to support a second slots license if it meant the Leominster site could come back into play because it is a good distance from the other casino locations. But the ballot question as written would require it to be built adjacent to an operating racetrack. That means Suffolk Downs in East Boston, and it just so happens that the developer behind the ballot measure wants to build on a site in Revere next to Suffolk Downs. [...] Further confirming our opposition: The people of Revere themselves don't want it. Voters there rejected the proposal in a non-binding referendum. There is no reason at this time to alter Massachusetts' measured approach to casinos. Vote "no" on 1.[3]

    		”

    The same editorial was also published in the Sentinel & Enterprise.[246]


  • Massachusetts Marijuana Legalization, Question 4 Approveda


    • Support

    • The Harvard Crimson wrote the following in support of Question 4:[247]
    “

    Rather than continuing to fund the War on Drugs, a policy that has done more to increase violence than stem it, the United States should reorient its priorities towards the regulation of marijuana under a well constructed legal framework. This November, Massachusetts voters have a chance to put the Commonwealth in the lead on this issue. They should take it, and vote yes on Question 4.[3]

    		”
    • The Boston Globe wrote the following:[248]
    “

    Using marijuana isn’t completely safe, and it isn’t completely harmless to others when users drive. But a social consensus is clearly emerging that pot’s real dangers just aren’t great enough to merit outlawing it anymore. While the authors of Question 4 could have written a much better law, they at least got the big picture right. Legal marijuana is coming. Let’s get on with it.[3]

    		”
    • The MetroWest Daily News wrote the following:[249]
    “

    The time for change is now. If its goal was to stop people from using marijuana, prohibition has failed. It has succeeded only at enriching those who operate outside the law, and at making life more difficult for the tiny percentage of users and suppliers who get caught, a group that is disproportionately black and Latino. Question 4 offers a better way to address the public interests in marijuana policy, and we urge a YES vote on Nov. 8.[3]

    		”

    Opposition

    • The Boston Herald editorial board wrote the following in opposition to Question 4:[250]
    “

    Supporters of legalization argue that pot isn’t addictive, and say claims of it being a gateway to heavier drug use aren’t backed up by data. But rather than listen to those with a financial interest in legalization we heed the words of Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, a recovering alcoholic, who notes that most addicts get their start with pot. ... In addition to public health there are a slew of public safety issues. The number of fatal accidents involving drivers with pot in their systems has increased by 62 percent in the three years since Colorado legalized pot use. There is still no reliable way to measure marijuana intoxication (Question 4 backers say that’s 'in development' — yep, that’s reassuring). ... The ballot question also imposes a far lower tax on the sale of marijuana than other states that have gone down this road, raising serious questions about an adequate source of revenue to regulate and enforce the new law. ... We could continue — and probably fill 11 single-spaced pages with the reasons to oppose Question 4 as written. We urge Massachusetts voters to vote 'no.'[3]

    		”

    Other opinions

    Note the Harvard Crimson later published an editorial fully in support of Question 4.

    The Harvard Crimson supported further decriminalization of marijuana but also supported further research on the societal and medical ramifications of full legalization, writing the following:[251]

    “ Though we recognize that full legalization of marijuana presents some thorny issues for lawmakers to address, it is difficult to say the same for further decriminalizing cannabis possession. Despite a 2008 referendum decriminalizing possession of one ounce or less of the drug, offenders are still subject to civil penalties, and about one thousand people are arrested each year for possession of larger amounts. ... Continuing to phase out penalties for possession of marijuana would be a logical extension of current policy. Despite the clear benefits of further decriminalization, the case for full legalization is not as clear-cut. Eight state senators who visited Colorado in January to assess that state’s experience brought back several concerns about a legalized marijuana industry and its public health implications for which there are no immediately obvious answers. ... These concerns deserve a full and public airing before Massachusetts voters make a final decision on legalization. [3] ”


  • Massachusetts Minimum Size Requirements for Farm Animal Containment, Question 3 Approveda


    • Support

    • The Boston Globe: "f those projections are even roughly accurate, the initiative would translate into an additional cost of maybe $10 per Massachusetts resident per year — and probably less. Raising the cost of food essentials by any amount should never be done lightly, since it’s the most vulnerable who are hit hardest. But in this case, the premium seems like a price worth paying. The Globe endorses the Yes on Question 3 campaign, which would dial up pressure on food producers nationally to treat confined animals with more decency."[252]
    • Cape Cod Times: "We support the humane treatment of farm animals as do many farmers. We recommend voting Yes on Question 3 on Nov. 8."[253]
    • The Berkshire Eagle: "The living conditions of farm animals has become a greater topic of discussion in recent years than ever before. Question 3 on the November 8 ballot gives people a chance to do something about those conditions. [...] If passed, the new law won't be enforced until 2022, providing an adjustment period and a chance for the Legislature to make sure that no interstate commerce regulations are violated. The Eagle endorses a 'Yes' vote on Question 3."[254]

    Opposition

    • The Lowell Sun wrote the following in opposition to Question 3:[255]
    “

    In this case, we don't believe the end justifies the means. The buying public -- and its influence in the marketplace -- has already announced a preference for free-range farm produce, many of which are already available today. And as this societal demand continues to grow, so will the variety of products, creating more competition and lower prices. And since this law wouldn't take effect until 2022, that leaves ample time for this market transition to occur. That's preferable to another layer of bureaucracy, which is why we can't support Question 3.[3]

    		”

    Minnesota

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Minnesota with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Minnesota Board to Set State Legislative Salaries, Amendment 1 Approveda


    • Support

    • ECM Publishers wrote the following in support of Amendment 1:[256]
    “

    In the interest of making legislative service more economically viable and sustainable for a broad range of Minnesotans, we support a “yes” vote on the amendment. (Remember, leaving the ballot unmarked amounts to a “no” vote on constitutional amendments.) Arguably, legislators should be brave and responsible enough to use their constitutional power to set a reasonable, professional salary without dragging politics into it. Equally arguable is that citizens are empowered to fix their constitution when circumstances show it needs fixing. That time has come.[3]

    		”

    Opposition

    • The Pioneer Press editorial board wrote the following in opposition to Amendment 1:[257]
    “

    With no organized campaigns either supporting or opposing the matter, it could take many voters by surprise. That’s unfortunate. Minnesotans should answer this ballot question — the only one on the general election ballot — with a “No.” [...] Accountability is a focal point of argument against the amendment. Critics say it cedes power to the council and would give lawmakers a pay bump without making the officials take responsibility for the decision, the Pioneer Press’ Rachel Stassen-Berger wrote this week. [...] If that pay increase is due, lawmakers should answer for it directly. Accountability should remain with them.[3]

    		”

    Neutral

    • The Post Bulletin editorial board said that lawmakers' pay was an important issue and that voters should take their time when deciding Amendment 1, writing the following:[258]
    “

    We're not saying lawmakers need a drastic boost in pay, but we do note that there should be some way to ensure the rate is in keeping with expectations and sets a level that helps ensure more would-be candidates can participate. Setting the pay of elected officials can be a tricky prospect, and considering the option is a weighty task. Because of that, we encourage all voters to take time to look up the actual amendment being proposed and make their own decisions. We'll link the full amendment in this editorial online. As we have encouraged with all races, take time to consider the options and then vote.[3]

    		”

    Missouri

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Missouri with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Missouri 60 Cent Cigarette Tax, Constitutional Amendment 3 Defeatedd


    • Support

    • St. Louis Post-Dispatch said: "Missouri’s 17-cents-a-pack tax is the lowest in the nation. ... Missouri’s low price encourages people to smoke and ruin their health. Increasing the tax by 60 cents creates a major financial smoking disincentive and discourages future smokers from embarking down a road of high medical expenses that ultimately get passed on to us all. ... If we really want people to stop lighting up — and saddling the rest of us with medical costs — Amendment 3 is voters’ best option."[259]

    Opposition

    • Hannibal Courier-Post said: “Look at Amendment 3 as what it is — a deceptive, poorly-drafted measure that clutters the state’s constitution and aims to keep big tobacco big. This gets an emphatic “no” from us.”[260]
    • The Herald-Whig said: "We normally would support more education funding and programs that would help curtail smoking. But major tobacco firms are bankrolling this initiative, in part to raise the cost for discount-brand competitors. Provisions in the measure involving abortion and stem-cell research also mean it would likely be challenged in court for years, delaying any potential funding."[261]
    • The Joplin Globe said: "In the same way that the Marlboro Man tried to get Americans to buy cigarettes, these two plans [Amendment 3 and Proposition A] are trying to get us to buy into the goals and agenda of tobacco companies. All you need to remember when you’re wondering if you can trust tobacco companies is that many of the rugged Marlboro models rode off into the sunset with oxygen tanks strapped to their saddlebags."[262]
    • Kansas City Business Journal said: "The KCBJ’s editorial board writes that on the surface, the Missouri ballot measure looks like it warrants a yes vote. But behind the smokescreen lurks a serious trap for voters."[263]
    • The Kansas City Star said: "These groups know that this amendment concocted in Big Tobacco’s boardrooms is crafted to increase the industry’s profits. They know that there are provisions in this amendment — such as ones involving abortion and stem-cell research — that would throw this issue into the courts for many years to come delaying or preventing any funding to go to early childhood health. If this amendment were what it pretends to be on the surface, we would back it gladly. It is not what it pretends to be."[264]
    • The St. Louis American said: "Amendment 3 – an initiative presumably about decreasing smoking and increasing education funding – also includes completely off-topic and worrisome language regarding funding for STEM cell research and abortion services, which is why Missouri Cures and NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri both oppose it. There is no defensible reason why this language should appear in a measure that has nothing to do with STEM cell research or a woman’s right to choose abortion."[265]

    Other

    • The St. Louis Jewish Light recommended that voters review Amendment 3, but did not announce a position:[266]
    “ Here’s how we would frame the issue: Does a seriously flawed, regressive tax and health measure that will ultimately increase cigarette taxes by 60 cents per pack and lead to many millions of dollars for early childhood education deserve your support? …

    As noted at the outset, we think the choice is really dependent on where your personal priorities lay. If you believe that adding some tax is better than none and funding early childhood education in a substantial manner is better than not funding it, then this is a Yes vote for you. However, if you believe that the increase in cigarette taxes isn’t enough, or won’t have significant enough health benefits, or you oppose the other provisions or sin taxes in general, then you may be at No.[3]

    		”

    St. Louis Post-Dispatch

    The St. Louis Post-Dispatch offered differing editorial endorsements over 2016. On February 16, 2016, the paper's editorial board said, "For the first time in more than a decade, a sound proposal to raise tobacco taxes has relatively clear sailing."[267] On April 24, 2016, the editorial board reversed course on Amendment 3, stating:[268]

    “ It pains us to reverse this newspaper’s support for what seemed like a worthy Missouri constitutional amendment, but we cannot advocate a clear attempt to deceive voters with what now appears to be a Trojan horse measure ...

    The group Raise Your Hands for Kids touted this initiative as a way to raise money for young children by increasing the state’s cigarette tax, the lowest in the nation, from 17 cents to 77 cents a pack. The poisonous part involves language stipulating the new tax revenue cannot be used for abortions, abortion services or for “human cloning or research, clinical trials, or therapies or cures using human embryonic stem-cells.”[3]

    		”

    In September 2016, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board switched positions once more following Judge James Dowd's legal opinion on Amendment 3. The paper wrote:[259]

    “ This newspaper originally leaned in favor of the amendment but later determined that “poison-pill” wording could threaten funding for stem-cell research, making it unacceptable.

    Since then, retired Missouri Court of Appeals Judge James Dowd issued a legal interpretation for the group supporting the tax, Raise Your Hands for Kids, that says the proposal will not affect stem-cell research. Dowd’s view is not legally binding, and the amendment may be challenged in court if approved, but the argument is persuasive. ...

    Dowd’s opinion says the amendment cannot restrict such research or limit patients’ access to stem-cell therapies already authorized by the state Constitution. ...

    If we really want people to stop lighting up — and saddling the rest of us with medical costs — Amendment 3 is voters’ best option.[3]

    		”


  • Missouri 23 Cent Cigarette Tax, Proposition A Defeatedd


    • Support

    • St. Louis Post-Dispatch said: "Whatever can be done to discourage smoking is worthwhile, and a yes vote to both Prop. A and Amendment 3 would send a strong message that the state must take action to end the incentive posed by low-cost smoking."[269]

    Opposition

    • Hannibal Courier-Post said: “A counter to Amendment 3, Proposition A has serious flaws on its own. Any proposition that claims to be invalid contingent on an “if, when” scenario like Proposition A isn’t worth it.”[270]
    • The Herald-Whig said: "Clearly, Missouri needs to adequately address an acute transportation funding crisis that is handcuffing the Missouri Department of Transportation, but this proposition falls woefully short, and the intention of proponents is questionable."[271]
    • The Kansas City Star said: "They vigorously oppose the higher cigarette tax in Amendment 3 and claim they really want to help pay for roads and bridges. Really? This group has opposed transportation measures that would have increased Missouri’s ultra-low gas taxes for roads."[272]
    • The Joplin Globe said: "In the same way that the Marlboro Man tried to get Americans to buy cigarettes, these two plans [Amendment 3 and Proposition A] are trying to get us to buy into the goals and agenda of tobacco companies. All you need to remember when you’re wondering if you can trust tobacco companies is that many of the rugged Marlboro models rode off into the sunset with oxygen tanks strapped to their saddlebags."[273]

    Montana

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Montana with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Montana Bonds to Fund Biomedical Research Authority, I-181 Defeatedd


    • Support

    • The Great Falls Tribune said, "We believe this innovative and ambitious idea has the merit to justify people signing a petition to place the issue on the ballot in November, and we encourage registered voters to do just that. It’s a tall order these days to get issues on the ballot, as 24,175 valid signatures are needed from across the state."[274]
    • Bozeman Daily Chronicle said, "One of the best arguments advocates for I-181 offer is that federal money for this kind of research has been declining. That’s true, and it has been reflected in some recent declines in Montana State University research grants. But it would be better to lobby our congressional delegation to lean on their colleagues to restore that funding at the federal level than to create another state bureaucracy."[275]

    Opposition

    • Billings Gazette said, "Montana’s Constitution requires a balanced budget. Under I-181, over the next three decades, Montana government would have about $300 million less to spend on everything else if it has to repay the proposed $200 million in borrowing. Much as we would like to think that a research breakthrough in Montana would lead to cures, cost savings and job creation that would make the investment worthwhile, the truth is we don’t know. There are no guarantees. The initiative doesn’t even require that the state share in royalties from treatments developed through publicly funded research."[276]


  • Marsy's Law Montana Crime Victims Rights, CI-116 Approveda/Overturnedot


    • Support

    • Great Falls Tribune said, "The Tribune editorial board strongly favors the concept of giving crime victims the opportunity to be heard in court and in other venues. That’s simply a fair thing to do."[277]

    Opposition

    • Billings Gazette said, "CI-116 isn’t likely to change the outcome of criminal cases, but it will increase the workload of an already-overburdened Montana justice system. Voters will see on their ballots that CI-116 is expected to increase costs for the state and local governments, but the amount is unknown."[278]
    • Bozeman Daily Chronicle said, "There are many statutes in place designed to protect the rights of victims. Those statutes may be followed unevenly, and there are certainly cases where victims’ rights have been compromised. But advocates for CI-116 would be smarter to push for more consistent enforcement of existing victims’ rights laws than trying to amend the constitution."[279]
    • The Missoulian said, "But Marsy’s Law, which will appear on Montana voters’ ballots as Constitutional Initiative 116, would not fix those failures. On the contrary, it has the potential to wreak havoc on Montana’s criminal justice system and create even more trouble."[280]

    Nevada

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Nevada with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Nevada Medical Equipment Sales Tax Exemption, Question 4 Approveda


    • Support

    • Elko Daily said: "In this case, however, the sales tax on medical equipment including home oxygen delivery is one we can do without."[281]
    • Lahontan Valley News said: "We agree and support Question 4.”[282]
    • Las Vegas Sun said: "This is a chance to show compassion to those who likely need to catch a break. The Sun recommends a “Yes” on Question 4."[283]

    Opposition

    • Las Vegas Review-Journal said: "While the measure is well intentioned, it is simply bad policy. Nevada should be looking to shorten the already long list of transactions that are currently exempt from the sales tax, rather than creating new permanent loopholes. Vote no on Question 4."[284]

    New Jersey

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in New Jersey with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • New Jersey Dedication of All Gas Tax Revenue to Transportation, Public Question 2 (2016) Approveda


    • Support

    • Jersey Journal said, "Since roads in our port county take a beating from trucking, a yes vote would give us at least some solace knowing that 100 percent of the taxes are mandated to go to transportation projects."[285]
    • The Star-Ledger said, "This doesn't mean every spending program should have its own funding source enshrined in the state constitution – we'd have thousands of amendments if that were the case. The gas tax is a notable exception, because transportation is the foundation of our state economy: If it fails, we fail. And judging by the condition of our roads, we're already in a ditch."[286]

    New Mexico

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in New Mexico with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • New Mexico Library Acquisition Bond Question Approveda



  • New Mexico Higher Education Bond Question Approveda



  • New Mexico Denial of Bail Measure, Constitutional Amendment 1 Approveda


    • Support

    • The Las Vegas Optic editorial board wrote the following in support of Amendment 1:[287]
    “

    Judges can only deny bail to a defendant charged with a capital felony; a defendant with two or more felony convictions in the state; or a defendant accused of a felony involving the use of a deadly weapon if that defendant has a felony conviction in New Mexico. Thugs who don’t fall into one of those three categories now have a constitutional right to bail, regardless of any evidence that the defendant poses a significant risk to the community. For the safety of our families and our communities, that has to change. By the same token, it’s wrong to jail non-violent defendants for weeks or months on end just because they are poor and can’t come up with the money or property to bond out of jail. Even if this amendment is approved by voters, judges will still have the authority to set bonds for non-violent defendants in cases where that defendant is deemed to be a flight risk. Keeping nonviolent offenders behind bars just because they are poor hurts those defendants and their families economically. And it drives up costs for counties since they are the government entities responsible for running jails in this state. [...] The Optic’s editorial board urges you to vote in favor of this amendment.[3]

    		”

    Opposition

    Ballotpedia has not yet found any editorial board endorsements in opposition to Amendment 1. If you know of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.

    North Carolina

    See North Carolina 2016 ballot measures for more information.

    North Dakota

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in North Dakota with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • North Dakota Marsy's Law Crime Victims Rights, Initiated Constitutional Measure 3 Approveda


    • Oklahoma

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Oklahoma with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Oklahoma Rehabilitative Programs Fund Initiative, State Question 781 Approveda



  • Oklahoma State Question 776, Allow State to Impose Death Penalty Amendment Approveda


    • Support

    • Sooner Politics said: "The purpose of S.Q. 776 is to reiterate, in the state Constitution, that capital punishment is not unconstitutional in Oklahoma."[288]

    Other opinions

    • Muskogee Phoenix said: "But this question appears to ensure that the conveyor belt of death-row inmates can’t be slowed or stopped. Executing a citizen should have enough constitutional restrictions and legal benchmarks to ensure the state does not put to death an innocent person."[289]
    • The Oklahoman said: "On the issue of the death penalty, Oklahoma appears to be swimming upstream. [...] Time will tell if that strong support is enough to overcome the death penalty's mounting legal and pragmatic challenges."[290]
    • Tahlequah Daily Press said: "There is no need for this question. Courts have to follow state law, but they also have to follow federal law. And, federal law always trumps state law. Even if SQ 776 passes, there is nothing to prevent a challenge to it or to a method of execution in federal court."[291]
    • Tulsa World said: "The measure has no intended consequences, but the nature of unintended consequences is that they are unintended, and sometimes unpredictable. We do know this: Whenever the state messes with its death penalty law, it creates a new set of issues for inmates and their lawyers to test in court."[292]
    • Stillwater News Press: said: "This is yet another attempt of Oklahomans trying to protect Oklahoma from future Oklahomans. How many times as Oklahomans have we asked the government to stop trying to protect us from ourselves? Aren’t we showing the same lack of trust for future Oklahomans?"[293]


  • Oklahoma One Percent Sales Tax, State Question 779 Defeatedd


    • Support

    • The Muskogee Phoenix editorial board said the following: "Many believe that penny would be the tipping point that could halt our city’s economic growth. [...] But, our children are far too important to leave to chance. Their success is far too important to trust to state legislators who would rather cut state income tax and provide high-dollar incentives to corporations than ensure little Johnny has the skills to work at one of those corporations. [...] we recommend approving SQ 779."[294]

    Opposition

    • Enid News said: "While we have long said Oklahoma teachers deserve a pay raise, we cannot support State Question 779... However, a sales tax is the wrong approach to take. For one, a sales tax is a regressive tax. It impacts lower-income people more than it does those with higher incomes. For another, cities, towns and many counties rely on sales tax revenue to fund services for their residents. Adding to the sales tax burden through SQ 779 would hamstring the ability of municipalities to raise funds for projects they might need."[295]
    • The Oklahoman said: "Teacher pay needs to be addressed, certainly, but SQ 779 is not the answer. Instead, citizens need to pressure state lawmakers to get serious about education and education reform."[296]
    • Sooner Politics said: "There is one (SQ 779) which is very suppressive and should be rejected as a constitutional mandate. It would make Oklahoma's repressive sales tax an even greater burden on all of us, especially those of very limited economic means."[297]

    Oregon

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Oregon with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Oregon Portion of Lottery Proceeds for Support of Veterans, Measure 96 Approveda


    • Support

    • The Daily Astorian said: "Veterans aren’t a special interest group seeking money from the state jackpot for a nonessential cause. They are Oregon men and women who served — and were willing to give up their lives — for our freedoms. They’ve held to the solemn promise that we as a people would care for them when they got home."[298]
    • The Dalles Chronicle said: "What’s not to like about making sure the 350,000 veterans in the state receive the care they deserve? We agree with the Legislature, which unanimously referred M96 to the voters, that Oregonians have a duty to stop veterans from falling through the cracks of the state safety net."[299]
    • Portland Tribune (Pamplin Media Group) said: "While we acknowledge this isn’t an ideal solution to a pressing need, it’s the best one we have, and we urge voters to support our veterans by supporting Measure 96."[300]
    • The Register-Guard said: "A country that sends its young men and women to battle and doesn’t provide for them after they return is a country that stands in violation of a social contract. Measure 96 rights that wrong, translating a state’s respect for its veterans into dollars-and-cents help for those who have earned it."[301]
    • Street Roots said: "It will go toward alleviating the abysmal unemployment rate among returning veterans and reduce the often tragic wait times for service people seeking health care."[302]
    • Willamette Week said: “Although we are reluctant to amend the state constitution, there are already constitutional lottery set-asides for schools, parks and salmon. The measure would shift about $9 million a year away from discretionary lottery expenditures such as economic development and college athletics. That's about twice what the Oregon Department of Veterans Affairs gets annually now. Veterans deserve more than a hollow "Thank you for your service.”[303]

    Opposition

    • The Bend Bulletin said: "And that’s the measure’s most serious flaw. As Oregon’s dollars are increasingly set aside for this or that special group or great idea, lawmakers have relatively less to pay for everything else the state provides and no way to make up the difference. We elect lawmakers to write budgets based on what they believe Oregonians need most. Measure 96 defeats that purpose. All that said, nothing prevents the Legislature from allocating more resources for veterans if advocates convince them it’s the right choice. Voters should reject Measure 96, and advocates for veterans should take their case for additional funding to lawmakers."[304]
    • Corvallis Gazette-Times said: "But this measure, and others like it, inevitably take away money from other state priorities. (And, as a constitutional amendment, Measure 96 would require a vote of the people to set aside.) We ask the Legislature to build a budget based on the changing priorities of the state. To some extent, Measure 96 ties the hands of legislators in tackling that essential duty. Voters should be skeptical."[305][306]
    • East Oregonian endorsed a "No" vote.[307]
    • Eugene Weekly said: "As much as we want to see veterans’ services funded, we are skeptical of this measure. It draws from the same funding source (lottery dollars) as the Outdoor School measure. Rather than pull more from the lottery pot, and lock this funding into the Oregon Constitution, we would like to see the Oregon Legislature allocate money from the general fund for veterans’ services."[308]
    • Mail Tribune said: "Carving up lottery dollars into smaller and smaller shares is no way to run a state. What's worse, Measure 96 would lock this funding into the state constitution, so lawmakers couldn't alter it without a vote of the people. Everyone is in favor of helping veterans. But they are already being helped, and this is not a cost-effective way to increase that assistance."[309]
    • The Oregonian said: "The Lottery tempts, but it should not be viewed as a broad-spectrum revenue tool whenever fiscal challenges arise. Oregon's veterans need better services. But Measure 96 is not the way to fund them, and voters should reject it."[310]


  • Oregon Business Tax Increase, Measure 97 Defeatedd


    • See also: 2016 ballot measure media endorsements

    Support

    • The Eugene Weekly said, "Education is one of the most important investments Oregon could possibly make. For the past two decades, our state has shortchanged its future by selling our public school system short. Enough is enough, and it’s time to fund schools with a 'yes' vote on Measure 97."[311]
    • The Portland Mercury said, "It’s clear, given both our state’s challenges and basic fairness, that large companies should pay more. We’re not sure Measure 97 is exactly the right type of 'more,' but it’s something—which is more than Oregon has been able to accomplish on this issue in far too long."[312]
    • The Salem Weekly: "Oregon, too, has struggled to satisfy demands that a growing population places upon our transportation infrastructure, state police, parks, schools, and health care system. ... This is not a regressive sales tax. Levied only on 'C' corporations with over $25 million in sales, 99.75% of Oregon’s businesses will not have to pay the tax, and most of those that will pay are large, interstate chains such as Walmart, Comcast, Bank of America, and McDonalds. ... Citizens expect government to deliver high quality services. Measure 97 will make it possible for Oregon to regain some of the ground recently lost and to rebalance the tax burden."[313]
    • Street Roots said: "This is a flawed measure, no question. But it swings the pendulum in the right direction and gives the Legislature a foundation to build upon. It needs to be modified to alleviate potential pressures on lower income residents, particularly regarding the increase of utility costs and health care. But the push has to come from somewhere, and low-income Oregonians are also already bearing the brunt of Oregon’s underfunded public schools and limited access to health care."[314]

    Opposition

    • The Bend Bulletin said, "The measure, which would bump up taxes on Oregon sales of $25 million or more, goes much further than that, right into your wallet, as a matter of fact. ... We’ve noted before that while IP 28 [Measure 97] would bring pots of new tax money into state coffers, it would do so at a terrible price, one paid by virtually every person in the state. The measure does not simply apply to 'rich' out-of-state corporations. It applies to regulated power companies, booksellers, perhaps the family doctor, even companies not making a profit at all. And as each of those raises prices, it’s the customers who will pay."[315]
    • The Corvallis Gazette-Times said, "We recommend a 'no' vote on this poorly conceived measure, which will end up costing Oregon consumers."[316]
    • The Dalles Chronicle said, "The board voted 6-1 in opposition to Measure 97... The majority were against the measure out of the belief it is poorly crafted and funding disbursement of about $3 billion per year would be left up to the Legislature, so would not necessary go where promised."[317]
    • East Oregonian endorsed a "No" vote.[318]
    • The Mail Tribune said, "We are not suggesting that Oregon does not need more revenue, or that its tax system does not need reform. But Measure 97 would generate more revenue by making the tax system less fair, not more. The state is long overdue for a real overhaul of its lopsided tax structure. Measure 97 is not it, and if it passes, that needed overhaul will be even less likely to happen."[319]
    • The Oregonian said, "It should go without saying that money's not free. The state's taxation decisions should be driven by an honest discussion of tradeoffs and consequences. That's responsible policymaking. Measure 97 is not."[320]
    • Pamplin Media Group, publisher of the Lake Oswego Review, said, "As a report from the nonpartisan Legislative Revenue Office has shown, families will pay much of this regressive tax — which will be levied on a corporation’s Oregon sales exceeding $25 million — because the businesses affected by it are selling the very products that ordinary people use each day: groceries, clothing, gasoline, medicine and electricity. ... A tax expansion as massive as Measure 97 — which would increase total state government tax receipts by 25 percent — would hit every household budget in Oregon. If families have less money available, they are less likely to approve bond measures that also will add significantly to their monthly expenses."[321]
    • The Portland Tribune said, "Supporters of Measure 97 have tried to depict it as a tax that applies 'only to 1,000 corporations.' What they don’t tell you is that those businesses account for 88 percent of the corporate retail sales in Oregon. Think about how many locations Fred Meyer, Safeway, Walgreens, Target, Walmart or similar companies have across the state and you will begin to understand it’s not just 1,000 companies — it’s tens of thousands of stores."[322]
    • The Register-Guard said, "Businesses in Oregon are already looking at their options if Measure 97 passes. Among them are leaving the state, delaying or canceling expansion, expanding out of state, cost-cutting strategies such as layoffs, closing lower-performing outlets to reduce gross sales below the $25 million threshold and restructuring C corporations (taxes are assessed on the business itself) as S corporations (taxes are paid by the owners at their individual tax rates). None of these bode well for the proposed tax."[323]
    • The Wall Street Journal said, "Progressives claim they can pay for their grand spending ambitions by soaking the rich, but the little guy invariably gets wet. The latest illustration is Oregon, where unions are campaigning for a gross-receipts tax on large corporations that even state budget analysts warn will drench the 99% too. ... While the referendum is billed as a progressive tax to help fund education and health services for the poor, the real beneficiaries as usual will be public unions. Oregon’s gross-receipts tax would be one more regressive income redistribution from the private economy to the privileged government class.[324]
    • The Willamette Week said, “On its face, Measure 97 is elegantly designed: Somebody else pays it, and many of those somebodies are large, unloved corporations. But like a fake Rolex, the moving parts underneath the surface are less elegant. … It is our hope that the Legislature, which will probably continue under Democratic control, can craft something better.”[325]
    • The World said, "Measure 97 is a back-door method of prying more revenues out of individual hard-working Oregonians, not big corporations. Yes, we have liabilities that need to be addressed. But we should be doing so above board and with transparency."[326]


  • Oregon Public University Diversification of Investments, Measure 95 Approveda


    • Support

    • Albany Democrat-Herald said: "Since one of the underlying ideas behind the bill was to give universities the opportunity to create another stream of revenue aside from tuition and state support, it makes sense to clarify that universities can make investments. We expect, of course, that universities will manage these investments prudently, but they need the leeway offered by Measure 95."[327]
    • The Bend Bulletin said: "It deserves voter support. It’s important, say its supporters, because investing in the stock market is a critical tool for managing the universities’ finances. That could mean more funds available to limit tuition increases and support other university programs."[328]
    • Corvallis Gazette-Times said: "Since one of the underlying ideas behind the bill was to give universities the opportunity to create another stream of revenue aside from tuition and state support, it makes sense to clarify that universities can make investments. We expect, of course, that universities will manage these investments prudently, but they need the leeway offered by Measure 95. We recommend a "yes" vote."[329]
    • The Daily Astorian said: "Long term, larger returns for the universities could help keep tuition down and more affordable for students. Voters should give Measure 95 a resounding “Yes.”[330]
    • The Dalles Chronicle said: "Measure 95 was endorsed by a 6-1 vote. ... The rationale behind our support was that public colleges were at a disadvantage with private institutions, which had more autonomy to fundraise. Passage of the measure would even the playing field by allowing public universities to invest in equities to reduce financial risk and increase funds available to help students."[331]
    • East Oregonian endorsed a "Yes" vote.[332]
    • Eugene Weekly said: "We asked a local investment adviser and a local economist we respect to give us their views on 95. Both said it is a conservative proposal, some risk involved, but they generally support it for the benefits it offers. It applies to all Oregon public state universities, not only the University of Oregon. We do wonder why this was referred to the voters who have so little understanding of the issues."[333]
    • The Mail Tribune said: "But the state constitution has a clause that prohibits "the state" from owning stock. There are specific exceptions built in, and Measure 95 would add university funds to that list, clarifying what should have been clear all along. University investments must be secure, of course, and subject to public disclosure. But allowing investments has the potential to help hold down tuition rates."[334]
    • The Oregonian said: "The rationale for the measure is simple: Oregon's universities need the headroom to responsibly and creatively manage their assets to generate maximum income to support programs and financial aid. Having suffered years of underfunding by the state, Oregon's universities should be free to take full ownership of their fortunes. That means investing wisely. Oregonians should vote yes on Measure 95."[335]
    • Portland Tribune (Pamplin Media Group) said: "No one has stepped forward to oppose Measure 95 and we certainly see no reason to do so."[336]
    • The Register-Guard said: "The need to vote on this may be confusing to people who know that universities, through their foundations, already have hundreds of millions of dollars invested in financial instruments of all kinds, including stocks. Measure 95 has nothing to do with assets controlled by university foundations. It has to do with the large sums of money that flow through university budgets when students pay their tuition or their bills for room and board, when the state appropriates funds for higher education, or when money comes in from other sources."[337]
    • Willamette Week said: “Lawmakers wanted universities to be able to invest in the stock market. But it's unclear whether the Oregon Constitution prohibits that. This limited fix would end the confusion and allow universities to manage their finances responsibly.”[338]

    Opposition

    Ballotpedia has not yet found any editorial board endorsements in opposition to Measure 95. If you know of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.


  • Oregon Elimination of Mandatory Judicial Retirement Age, Measure 94 Defeatedd


    • Support

    • Albany Democrat-Herald said: "The current requirement doesn't even allow judges to serve out the remainder of their terms; at the end of the calendar year in which they turn 75, they're forced to step down. No other elected officials in Oregon are subject to mandatory age-based retirement, so this requirement is discriminatory as well."[339]
    • The Bend Bulletin said: "By voting yes, Oregonians can correct an injustice to individual jurists while also giving themselves the benefit of being served by mature judges with critical knowledge and experience. ... In other words, age would no longer be assumed to mean incompetence, thus removing an antiquated bit of discrimination from the constitution."[340]
    • Corvallis Gazette-Times said: "The requirement is a relic of an age in which people didn't live and work as long as they do today; there was a time when 75 must have seemed ancient. That's no longer the case; it seems silly to turn away competent judges with a lifetime of experience, just because they've reached an arbitrary age."[341]
    • The Daily Astorian said: "Long-serving judges accumulate decades of experience and wisdom during their careers and Oregonians should not be deprived of their service during their day in court by an unneeded and arbitrary law. Those jurists who want to continue their service on the bench should have that opportunity and not be forced into retirement."[342]
    • East Oregonian endorsed a "Yes" vote.[343]
    • Eugene Weekly said: "Most judges are eager to retire long before 75, and the few who want to continue should have the option. Although they are not Oregon judges, we think of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Judge Harry Pregerson of the 9th Circuit, ruling brilliantly long past 75."[344]
    • The Mail Tribune said: "We all know vital, energetic people in their 70s, and among them are some very experienced, capable judges. There is no rational reason to set an arbitrary age limit. If a judge wants to continue serving — or an attorney wants to run for the bench after retiring from private practice, more power to them."[345]
    • The Oregonian said: "But the broader hardship of the current law is borne by all Oregonians, deprived of the services of some very fine jurists. Vote yes on Measure 94 to allow judges to serve as long as they are able and have the will do so — and also to bleach from the Constitution's age limit provision male-only references, a gender insult. The state's Commission on Judicial Fitness and Disability, meanwhile, already has a process for removing judges who might show deficiencies at any age."[346]
    • Portland Tribune (Pamplin Media Group) said: "But voters should acknowledge times have changed and amend the constitution again, to reverse the 1960 amendment and eliminate mandatory retirement for Oregon judges."[347]
    • The Register-Guard said, "Not many state judges continue working to age 75 and beyond, the state Judicial Department has said. There is no reason to force those experienced judges who are still willing and able to serve into mandatory retirement at that arbitrary age, depriving the people of Oregon of their services."[348]
    • Willamette Week said: “State lawmakers want the clause stricken from the constitution, and they're right. Wisdom doesn't have an expiration date. We don't like term limits—and we sure don't like age discrimination. Let's put this antiquated requirement out to pasture.”[349]

    Opposition

    • The Dalles Chronicle said: "By a vote of 4-3, the board opposed Measure 94... dissenters on the board felt that judges making decisions that affect people’s lives, sometimes forever, had to be sharper in thought and discernment than other officials and those qualities tend to fall away with advanced age."[350]

    Pennsylvania

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Pennsylvania with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Pennsylvania Judicial Retirement Age Amendment Approveda


    • Support

    • The Daily Item said:[351]
    “ Indeed, if the mandatory retirement age for U.S. Supreme Court judges was 70 or 75, we would no longer have Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 83; Anthony Kennedy, 80, or Stephen Breyer, 78, serving on the highest court in this country.[3] ”

    Opposition

    • The Chambersburg Public Opinion said:[352]
    “ Our first inclination is to say yes, of course. It's time to end the age discrimination of forced retirement. But our second inclination, upon further reflection, is to say no, not now; for Pennsylvania, proposing to raise the mandatory retirement age for judges is getting the cart before the horse.

    The credibility of Pennsylvania’s appellate courts is at an all-time low, in the wake of porngate/Chief Justice J. Michael Eakin’s resignation, the forced retirement of Justice Seamus McCaffery in the aforementioned scandal, and the removal, disbarrment and conviction of Justice Joan Orie Melvin on campaign corruption charges. Stir in plenty of internal feuding too.

    Since it’s so difficult for voters to separate the sheep from the goats among state judicial candidates, extending the retirement age could prolong the agony by keeping at least some bad judges on the bench longer.[3]

    		”
    • Pittsburgh Post-Gazette said:[353]
    “ The GOP-controlled Legislature’s actions clearly were intended to boost the odds of passage — and perhaps to influence the makeup of the Supreme Court, which has five Democrats and two Republicans now. Without a change in retirement age, it will lose one of the Republicans, Chief Justice Thomas Saylor, at the end of the year. A Democrat, Justice Max Baer, turns 70 next year.

    It turns out the Legislature had good reason to worry about the initial — honest — question going down to defeat. Some counties didn’t have time to remove the question from the primary ballot. Although the results didn’t count, the measure failed among the 2.4 million people who voted on it.

    Upon reaching the mandatory retirement age, jurists still have the opportunity to serve their communities as senior judges who are paid by the day. If judges want people to respect the laws, they must do so, too. The mandatory retirement age is 70. Let them live with it. The Post-Gazette urges a “No” vote on the proposal to raise judges’ mandatory retirement age to 75 from 70.[3]

    		”
    • Philadelphia Daily News said:[354]
    “ We agree with those who filed the suits challenging the wording of the ballot question. We believe it is deceitful - and deliberately so, designed to bamboozle voters into thinking they are voting on a minor issue that simply codifies existing law instead of adding five years to a judge's term. ...

    It's hard to have an informed electorate when we don't give them the information they need.

    On that grounds alone, we urge voters to vote "No" on the ballot question. We shouldn't reward the shenanigans that have marked the path of this question through the legislature and onto the ballot.

    We also oppose it on other grounds. Our judiciary hasn't exactly covered itself in glory in recent years. ...

    But we also know there is no shortage of smart lawyers who want to be judges. Being on the bench is a desirable job, and the lure is strong.[3]

    		”
    • The Philadelphia Inquirer said:[355]
    “ The argument to extend the retirement age isn't compelling. Proponents say unless it is raised from 70 to 75, 19 judicial vacancies will be created by this year's end, including Saylor's post. It's hard to believe that in all of Pennsylvania there are not 19 men and women of good character, temperament, and experience who could replace the retirees. Pennsylvanians should vote NO on the question.[3] ”
    • The Scranton Times-Tribune said:[356]
    “ Legislators turned the straightforward question about the retirement age into a question of political advantage. Republicans, alarmed by a recent trend of Democratic victories in state appellate court races, tried to stem that tide by raising the retirement age and creating fewer vacancies. Democrats agitated for the opposite.

    The Supreme Court invalidated the question in the spring primary. Then, the courts approved a new question that is deceptive...[3]

    		”

    Rhode Island

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Rhode Island with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Rhode Island Ethics Commission Amendment, Question 2 Approveda



  • Rhode Island Housing Bonds, Question 7 Approveda



  • Rhode Island Port Infrastructure Bonds, Question 5 Approveda



  • Rhode Island Higher Education Bonds, Question 4 Approveda



  • Rhode Island Green Economy Bonds, Question 6 Approveda


    • South Dakota

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in South Dakota with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • South Dakota Payday Lending Initiative, Initiated Measure 21 Approveda



  • South Dakota Redistricting Commission Amendment, Constitutional Amendment T Defeatedd



  • South Dakota Limit on Statutory Interest Rates for Loans, Constitutional Amendment U Defeatedd



  • South Dakota Marsy's Law Crime Victim Rights, Constitutional Amendment S Approveda


    • Opposition

    • The Rapid City Journal editorial board wrote the following:[357]
    “

    Since victims' rights are already addressed in state law, Marcy's Law is not needed. The Journal editorial board recommends a "no" vote on Amendment S.[3]

    		”

    Polls

    South Dakota Amendment S (2016)
    Poll Yes NoMargin of errorSample size
    Public Opinion Strategies
    7/16/2016 - 7/19/2016    		 70%18%+/-4.4500
    Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.


  • South Dakota Right for Organizations to Charge Fees for Services, Initiated Measure 23 Defeatedd



  • South Dakota Nonpartisan Elections, Constitutional Amendment V Defeatedd


    • Utah

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Utah with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Utah Amendment C, Tax Exemptions for Property Leased By State Measure Defeatedd



  • Utah Oath of Office, Amendment A Approveda



  • Utah School Funds Modification Amendment Approveda


    • Virginia

    See Virginia 2016 ballot measures for more information.

    Washington

    The following is a list of all measures certified for the ballot in Washington with the media editorial positions that Ballotpedia has found listed beneath. If a section is empty, Ballotpedia did not find any prominent editorials about that ballot measure. Please email editor@ballotpedia.org if you know of editorials that are not listed.


  • Washington Modifying Tax Exemption Criteria for Alternative Fuel Vehicles, Advisory Vote 15 Defeatedd


    • Support

    • The Daily News said: "Advisory no. 15 asks voters whether a tax exemption for purchases of alternative fuel vehicles should be left in place or not. Currently, the law exempts from sales tax the first $32,000 of the purchase price of qualifying new alternative fuel vehicles. … We say “no” on 14 and “yes” on 15.”[358]
    • The News Tribune said: "It actually adds limits to an existing exemption by capping the benefit people can claim on a clean-energy vehicle purchase or lease. At a time when state leaders are vowing to close tax loopholes large and small, this modest change makes good sense."[359]
    • The Stranger said: “This is about a tax exemption for folks who buy electric cars. It was passed overwhelmingly by the state legislature. More electric cars are a good thing for our state, nation, hemisphere, and planet.”[360]

    Opposition

    Ballotpedia has not yet found any editorial board endorsements in opposition to Advisory Vote 15. If you know of one, please email editor@ballotpedia.org.


  • Washington Taxation of Stand-Alone Dental Plans, Advisory Vote 14 Defeatedd


    • Support

    • The News Tribune said: "This year, voters are invited to chime in on a new tax on certain standalone dental plans. Legislators of both parties overwhelmingly approved this adjustment to the state health benefit exchange. We see no reason to doubt them."[361]
    • The Stranger said: “Again, it doesn't matter which way you vote on this. … so vote "Maintained.”[362]

    Opposition

    • The Daily News said: "In this case, no. 14 is an advisory vote to see if taxes on certain dental plans should be kept in place or not. A “yes” vote would advise the legislature to keep the tax in place, a “no” vote would advise for repeal. … We say “no” on 14 and “yes” on 15.”[363]

    Wyoming

    See Wyoming 2016 ballot measures for more information.

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ USA Today, "Vote 'yes' on gun safety measures: Our view," October 11, 2016
    2. ↑ Decatur Daily, "Vote ‘yes’ on amendments 13, 14," November 4, 2016
    3. ↑ 3.00 3.01 3.02 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.06 3.07 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 3.25 3.26 3.27 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 3.33 3.34 3.35 3.36 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.40 3.41 3.42 3.43 3.44 3.45 3.46 3.47 3.48 3.49 3.50 3.51 3.52 3.53 3.54 3.55 3.56 3.57 3.58 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    4. ↑ Times Daily, "Vote 'yes' on Amendment 1," October 29, 2016
    5. ↑ Decatur Daily, "Vote 'yes' on Amendment 1," October 29, 2016
    6. ↑ Decatur Daily, "Vote ‘yes’ on amendments 13, 14," November 4, 2016
    7. ↑ Ketchikan Daily News, "Ballot measures," October 22, 2016
    8. ↑ Juneau Empire, "Empire Editorial: Vote Yes on 1," October 21, 2016
    9. ↑ Arizona Daily Sun, "Our View: Hiking minimum wage to $12 by 2020 worth a try," November 5, 2016
    10. ↑ Tucson Weekly, "Hell Yes! The 2016 Tucson Weekly Endorsements," October 20, 2016
    11. ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Our View: Prop. 206 sounds good but has heavy costs," October 25, 2016
    12. ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Our View: Why Arizona schools need you (yes, you)," November 15, 2015
    13. ↑ Tucson.com, "Our view: a qualified 'yes' on Prop. 123," accessed April 26, 2016
    14. ↑ Glendale Star, "Vote yes on propositions next Tuesday," May 12, 2016
    15. ↑ Aztec Press, "Vote ‘yes’ on Proposition 205," September 29, 2016
    16. ↑ Tucson Weekly, "Hell Yes! The 2016 Tucson Weekly Endorsements," October 20, 2016
    17. ↑ The Arizona Republic, "Our View: Prop. 205 is the wrong way to legalize marijuana," October 17, 2016
    18. ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
    19. ↑ The Fresno Bee, "‘Yes’ vote on Prop. 58 will ease school language barriers," September 25, 2016
    20. ↑ Los Angeles Daily News, "Yes on Prop. 58 for more options in teaching English learners: Endorsement," October 24, 2016
    21. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 58 would bring back bilingual education in California. And that's a good thing," September 7, 2016
    22. ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
    23. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Give students and parents more choice," September 21, 2016
    24. ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
    25. ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
    26. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
    27. ↑ San Bernardino County Sun, "Yes on Prop. 58 for more options in teaching English learners: Endorsement," October 24, 2016
    28. ↑ The Press Enterprise, "Yes on Proposition 58," October 25, 2016
    29. ↑ 29.0 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8 San Mateo Daily Journal, "Editorial: Daily Journal proposition endorsements," October 28, 2016
    30. ↑ The Press Democrat, "Thumbs up: Vote yes on Prop 58," September 2, 2016
    31. ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "Our View: Put California students first: Vote no on Prop. 58," September 8, 2016
    32. ↑ The Mercury News, "Editorial: Bilingual rules rewrite deserves no vote," October 7, 2016
    33. ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Graduation gains, history require rejection of Prop. 58," October 13, 2016
    34. ↑ The Californian Aggie, "Dope decisions: The Editorial Board endorses legalizing recreational marijuana," October 26, 2016
    35. ↑ The Daily Californian, "Yes on 64: Legalize marijuana," October 21, 2016
    36. ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
    37. ↑ East Bay Times, "Editorial: California should decriminalize recreational marijuana use (East Bay Times)," August 5, 2016
    38. ↑ The Highlander, "Proposition Endorsements," October 3, 2016
    39. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "It's time to legalize and regulate marijuana in California. Yes on Proposition 64," September 16, 2016
    40. ↑ The Mercury News, "Editorial: California should legalize recreational marijuana," August 5, 2016
    41. ↑ The Modesto Bee, "Time to get weed industry under control; pass Prop 64," September 24, 2016
    42. ↑ Orange County Register, "Yes on Proposition 64," October 5, 2016
    43. ↑ San Diego City Beat, "2016 Voter Guide: State measures," October 12, 2016
    44. ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
    45. ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "Yes on Prop. 64: California should legalize marijuana," October 27, 2016
    46. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: Legalize marijuana Yes on Prop. 64," September 15, 2016
    47. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
    48. ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "The Californian recommends: A guide to California's crowded initiative ballot," October 2, 2016
    49. ↑ The Desert Sun, "Voters, Prop. 64 approach a flawed way to legalize pot," October 19, 2016
    50. ↑ Fresno Bee, "Vote no on 'half-baked' Proposition 64," September 17, 2016
    51. ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
    52. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Slick Proposition 64 is bad for public health," September 17, 2016
    53. ↑ Santa Clarita Valley Signal, "Our View: No on Prop 64," August 26, 2016
    54. ↑ Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, "PD Editorial: No on Prop 64: Just too many risks and unknowns," October 14, 2016
    55. ↑ The Porterville Recorder, "Say no to Prop. 64," October 2, 2016
    56. ↑ St. Helena Star, "Editorial: Vote no on Prop 64," September 7, 2016
    57. ↑ Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Pot measure not up to snuff on regulation," October 20, 2016
    58. ↑ Bakersfield Californian, "OUR VIEW: Prop. 56: Vote YES to increase cigarette tax," September 2, 2016
    59. ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
    60. ↑ The Highlander, "Proposition Endorsements," October 3, 2016
    61. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Vote yes on Proposition 56 to raise California's too-low tobacco tax," September 30, 2016
    62. ↑ Marin Independent Journal, "Marin IJ Editorial: Proposition 54 needed to stem legislative hijinks," October 13, 2016
    63. ↑ Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Tobacco tax increase deserves a big yes," July 9, 2016
    64. ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
    65. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Californians should vote Yes on 56 for public health," September 9, 2016
    66. ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
    67. ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
    68. ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, “Yes on Prop. 56: raising the tobacco tax a healthy idea,” October 14, 2016
    69. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: Yes on Prop. 56," August 23, 2016
    70. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
    71. ↑ Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Prop. 56 would make our state healthier," September 29, 2016
    72. ↑ Orange County Register, "No on Proposition 56," October 11, 2016
    73. ↑ LA Daily News, "No on Prop. 56: Endorsement," October 10, 2016
    74. ↑ The Mercury News, "Editorial: Ignore outrageous Prop 56 tobacco tax ads," September 28, 2016
    75. ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "Plastic bag ban: Vote yes on Prop. 67; no on 65," September 17, 2016
    76. ↑ Chico Enterprise-Record, “Editorial: Uphold state’s plastic bag ban with Prop. 67,” October 5, 2016
    77. ↑ The Daily Californian, "No on 65, yes on 67: Uphold plastic bag ban," October 21, 2016
    78. ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
    79. ↑ East Bay Times, "East Bay Times editorial: Make California bag ban permanent," July 19, 2016
    80. ↑ The Hanford Sentinel, "It's all about the bags," September 30, 2016
    81. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Editorial Prop 67: A vote to stop profiteering from polluting the Golden State," September 12, 2016
    82. ↑ San Jose Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Make California bag ban permanent," July 21, 2016
    83. ↑ Monterey Herald, "Editorial, Oct. 13, 2016: Plastic bags: Vote yes on Prop. 67, no on Prop. 65," October 12, 2016
    84. ↑ Orange County Register, "No on Proposition 65," October 12, 2016
    85. ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
    86. ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
    87. ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
    88. ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, “Time to ban plastic bags: No on Proposition 65, yes on Prop. 67,” October 14, 2016
    89. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "‘No’ on Proposition 65, ‘yes’ on Proposition 67 to ban plastic bags," September 29, 2016
    90. ↑ The Fresno Bee, "‘No’ on 65, ‘yes; on yes on 67 to limit plastic bags," October 2, 2016
    91. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "San Francisco Chronicle recommends: Yes on Prop. 67, No on Prop. 65," August 26, 2016
    92. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
    93. ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial, Oct. 13, 2016: Plastic bags: Vote yes on Prop. 67, no on Prop. 65," October 13, 2016
    94. ↑ Santa Rosa Press Democrat, "PD Editorial: Don’t bury the plastic bag ban: No on Prop 65, Yes on Prop 67," September 21, 2016
    95. ↑ Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Don't be fooled by plastic bag initiatives," October 4, 2016
    96. ↑ Bakersfield Californian, "Our View: Vote yes on Prop. 57; reform California’s sentencing law," September 4, 2016
    97. ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
    98. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Prop 57 is a much-needed check on prosecutorial power. Vote yes," October 5, 2016
    99. ↑ Marin Independent Journal, "Marin IJ Editorial: Proposition 54 needed to stem legislative hijinks," October 13, 2016
    100. ↑ Orange County Register, "Yes on Proposition 57," October 16, 2016
    101. ↑ The Press-Enterprise, "Yes on Proposition 57," October 15, 2016
    102. ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
    103. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Prop. 57 would fix a mistake, help rehabilitate felons," September 27, 2016
    104. ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
    105. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "The Chronicle recommends: Yes on Prop. 57," September 10, 2016
    106. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
    107. ↑ The Fresno Bee, "Poorly written Proposition 57 deserves your ‘no’ vote," October 1, 2016
    108. ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
    109. ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "California needs criminal justice reform but not Prop. 57," October 25, 2016
    110. ↑ The Santa Clarita Valley Signal, "Our view: Protect lives and property: No on Prop 57," September 12, 2016
    111. ↑ Santa Rosa Press Democrat, "PD Editorial: No on Prop 57: Too many risks in parole plan," September 22, 2016
    112. ↑ The Mercury News, "Editorial: Vote no on sloppily written Prop. 57," September 23, 2016
    113. ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "The Californian recommends: A guide to California's crowded initiative ballot," October 2, 2016
    114. ↑ Chico Enterprise-Record, "Editorial: Yes on Proposition 62, no on Proposition 66," October 5, 2016
    115. ↑ The Desert Sun, "Voters should end the death penalty in California," October 22, 2016
    116. ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
    117. ↑ East Bay Times, "Editorial: Abolish death penalty; pass Proposition 62," July 16, 2016
    118. ↑ Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Abolish the death penalty; Vote yes on Proposition 62," July 15, 2016
    119. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Props 62 and 66: California voters should end the death penalty, not speed it up," September 3, 2016
    120. ↑ The Modesto Bee, "It’s a question of conscience for Props 62, 66," October 18, 2016
    121. ↑ Monterey Herald, "Editorial, Sept. 9, 2016: Death penalty: Yes on 62, no on Prop. 66," September 9, 2016
    122. ↑ Orange County Register, "Yes on Proposition 62," October 13, 2016
    123. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "End the illusion: Abolish the death penalty," October 7, 2016
    124. ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
    125. ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
    126. ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "Why California should end, not streamline, the death penalty," October 23, 2016
    127. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Fight crime, not futility: Abolish death penalty," August 25, 2016
    128. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
    129. ↑ Santa Clarita Valley Signal, "Our View: Yes on Prop 62," August 19, 2016
    130. ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial, Sept. 9, 2016: Death penalty: Yes on 62, no on Prop. 66," September 8, 2016
    131. ↑ Santa Rosa Press Democrat, "PD Editorial: Death penalty: Yes on Prop 62, No on Prop 66," September 15, 2016
    132. ↑ Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Vote to end the death penalty in California," October 11, 2016
    133. ↑ Whittier Daily News, "Ending death penalty is the right choice; vote yes on Prop. 62: Endorsement," October 12, 2016
    134. ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
    135. ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
    136. ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "The Californian recommends: A guide to California's crowded initiative ballot," October 2, 2016
    137. ↑ Chico Enterprise-Record, "Editorial: Yes on Proposition 62, no on Proposition 66," October 5, 2016
    138. ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
    139. ↑ East Bay Times, "Editorial: Abolish death penalty; pass Proposition 62," July 16, 2016
    140. ↑ Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Abolish the death penalty; Vote yes on Proposition 62," July 15, 2016
    141. ↑ Los Angeles Daily News, "Death-penalty fixes are questionable; vote no on Prop. 66: Endorsement," October 12, 2016
    142. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Props 62 and 66: California voters should end the death penalty, not speed it up," September 3, 2016
    143. ↑ The Modesto Bee, "It’s a question of conscience for Props 62, 66," October 18, 2016
    144. ↑ Monterey Herald, "Editorial, Sept. 9, 2016: Death penalty: Yes on 62, no on Prop. 66," September 9, 2016
    145. ↑ Orange County Register, "No on Proposition 66," October 13, 2016
    146. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "End the illusion: Abolish the death penalty," October 7, 2016
    147. ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
    148. ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
    149. ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "Why California should end, not streamline, the death penalty," October 23, 2016
    150. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Fight crime, not futility: Abolish death penalty," August 25, 2016
    151. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
    152. ↑ Santa Clarita Valley Signal, "Our View: Yes on Prop 62," August 19, 2016
    153. ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial, Sept. 9, 2016: Death penalty: Yes on 62, no on Prop. 66," September 8, 2016
    154. ↑ Santa Rosa Press Democrat, "PD Editorial: Death penalty: Yes on Prop 62, No on Prop 66," September 15, 2016
    155. ↑ Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Vote to end the death penalty in California," October 11, 2016
    156. ↑ The Desert Sun, "Voters should OK Prop. 63's as sensible gun law tweaks," October 23, 2016
    157. ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
    158. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 63 would add to the state’s already robust gun control laws," September 20, 2016
    159. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "A California gun measure that’s too high stakes too fail," October 2, 2016
    160. ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
    161. ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
    162. ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "For sensible gun rules, vote yes on Proposition 63," October 13, 2016
    163. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: Yes on Prop. 63," September 12, 2016
    164. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
    165. ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "Vote no: Prop. 63 piles on redundant gun controls," September 21, 2016
    166. ↑ The Fresno Bee, "Proposition 63 won’t keep Californians any safer from gun violence," October 12, 2016
    167. ↑ Orange County Register, "Editorial: Vote no on Proposition 63," October 12, 2016
    168. ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
    169. ↑ The Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: California's gun control opportunity," May 20, 2016
    170. ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "Vote YES on Prop. 59; stem election money flow," September 12, 2016
    171. ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
    172. ↑ The Hanford Sentinel, "Yes on Proposition 59," October 15, 2016
    173. ↑ San Jose Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: Vote yes on Prop 59 to fight Citizens United ruling," August 17, 2016
    174. ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
    175. ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Take a stand on Citizens United," September 5, 2016
    176. ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
    177. ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
    178. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: Yes on state Prop. 59," September 6, 2016
    179. ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
    180. ↑ The Desert Sun, "Proposition 59 sheer waste of time on a crowded ballot," October 22, 2016
    181. ↑ Los Angeles Daily News, "No on Prop. 59 — ballot no place for opinion poll: Endorsement," October 10, 2016
    182. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Prop 59: Don't amend the Constitution over Citizens United," September 6, 2016
    183. ↑ Orange County Register, "No on Proposition 59," October 11, 2016
    184. ↑ San Diego Union-Tribune, "Proposition 59: Ballot clutter sets bad precedent," September 7, 2016
    185. ↑ Santa Cruz Sentinel, "Editorial: No on ‘feel-good’ Prop. 59, Citizens United," September 6, 2016
    186. ↑ Ventura County Star, "Editorial: Do not vote on Prop. 59," September 30, 2016
    187. ↑ Boulder Daily Camera‎, "Editorial: Yes on 72: Let's keep fighting a killer," October 1, 2016
    188. ↑ Colorado Springs Independent, "Busy ballot, tough choices for Colorado voters," October 12, 2016
    189. ↑ The Denver Post, "Yes on Amendment 72: Update Colorado’s cigarette tax," October 12, 2016
    190. ↑ The Gazette, "Vote 'yes' on 72, a move to save lives," October 13, 2016
    191. ↑ Glenwood Springs Post Independent‎, "Editorial: ColoradoCare too risky, but boost tobacco tax," October 23, 2016
    192. ↑ Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, "Yes on tobacco tax hike," October 13, 2016
    193. ↑ The Coloradoan, "Editorial: Tobacco tax shouldn’t be in constitution," October 17, 2016
    194. ↑ Longmont Times-Call, "Editorial: Choose 'yes' to shorten the Colorado ballot," October 1, 2016
    195. ↑ Loveland Reporter-Herald, “Choose 'yes' to shorten the ballot,” October 1, 2016
    196. ↑ The Tribune, "Tribune Opinion: We’re opposed to Colorado’s universal health care amendment, other constitutional measures; we support aid in dying, primary changes," October 14, 2016
    197. ↑ , "Editorial: One good, one bad solar amendment," April 1, 2016
    198. ↑ Tampa Bay Times, "Times recommends: Vote yes for Amendment 4," July 29, 2016
    199. ↑ Bradenton Herald, "A sensible, pro-consumer solar power amendment on Florida ballot," April 27, 2016
    200. ↑ The Tampa Tribune, "Editorial: Cut taxes to boost solar," May 1, 2016
    201. ↑ Tallahassee Democrat, "Our opinion: Yes on Amendment 4 – in August," May 4, 2016
    202. ↑ The Orlando Sentinel, "Support Amendment 4 for clean power," August 10, 2016
    203. ↑ Miami Herald, "Editorial: Amendment 4: Vote Yes on this beneficial solar proposal on Aug. 30," August 9, 2016
    204. ↑ Naples Daily News, "Editorial: Voters should support Aug. 30 ballot issues," August 2, 2016
    205. ↑ Sarasota Herald-Tribune, "Editorial: Vote 'yes' on solar tax break," August 2, 2016
    206. ↑ Ocala Star Herald, "Editorial: Pass Amendment 4 to promote solar," August 2, 2016
    207. ↑ Gainesville Sun, "Editorial: Pass Amendment 4 to promote solar," July 31, 2016
    208. ↑ Lakeland Ledger, "Editorial: Support the Solar Tax Break," August 10, 2016
    209. ↑ The Pensacola Voice, "Clear Cut Winner for Solar: Groups say Vote Yes on Amendment 4 on August Ballot," August 12, 2016
    210. ↑ Cape Coral Daily Breeze, "Primary election recommendations," August 12, 2016
    211. ↑ Florida Today, "Editorial: Yes on Amendment 4 for tax break on solar," August 12, 2016
    212. ↑ The St. Augustine Record, "Editorial: Amendment 4 a no-brainer in the Sunshine State," August 17, 2016
    213. ↑ Sun Sentinel, "For solar, vote yes on Amendment 4 | Opinion," August 19, 2016
    214. ↑ The Business Observer, "‘No’ on Amendment 4," accessed August 17, 2016
    215. ↑ Augusta Chronicle, "Reject changes to judicial commission; support proposed fund allocations," October 29, 2016
    216. ↑ Daily Journal, "Let's stop raiding road funds, vote 'yes' on road measure," August 29, 2016
    217. ↑ Herald Whig, "Illinois amendment will allow voters to halt road fund diversions," May 10, 2016
    218. ↑ Quad-City Times, "Editorial: In Illinois, road fund needs protection," September 2, 2016
    219. ↑ The Telegraph, "Editorial: State transportation funds need secured," August 22, 2016
    220. ↑ The Times, "OUR VIEW: Let's stop raiding Illinois road funds," August 29, 2016
    221. ↑ Chicago Sun-Times, "‘Stop me,’ says Springfield, ‘before I hurt again’," May 8, 2016
    222. ↑ The Chicago Tribune, "Vote 'no' on roads amendment. Then vote 'yes' for change in Cook County," October 18, 2016
    223. ↑ Daily Herald, "Endorsement: No on 'Safe Roads' constitutional amendment," October 24, 2016
    224. ↑ QCOnline, "Editorial: Lockbox amendment would open Pandora's Box," October 20, 2016
    225. ↑ The Southern Illinoisan, "Voice of The Southern: Vote no on ‘lockbox’ amendment," November 1, 2016
    226. ↑ The State Journal-Register, "Our View: Safe roads are good, but lockbox isn't smart route to get them," October 1, 2016
    227. ↑ Lawrence Journal-World, "Editorial: Don’t amend," October 26, 2016
    228. ↑ Salina Journal, "Don't change Constitution," November 2, 2016
    229. ↑ Wichita Eagle, "Endorsements: Congress, County Commission, Sheriff, judicial retention, amendment," October 30, 2016
    230. ↑ Portland Press Herald, "Our View: Ranked-choice petition first step toward reform," October 31, 2014
    231. ↑ Portland Press Herald, "Our View: Ranked-choice voting is right for Maine," October 16, 2016
    232. ↑ The Times Record, "Ranked Choice," November 13, 2014
    233. ↑ Village Soup, "Cast your ballot for ranked-choice voting," December 31, 2015
    234. ↑ The Ellsworth American, "Ranked-choice voting," September 16, 2016
    235. ↑ Bangor Daily News, "The reasons for Maine to adopt ranked-choice voting are unconvincing," October 19, 2016
    236. ↑ Mount Desert Islander, "Referendum review," November 4, 2016
    237. ↑ The Ellsworth American, "An extra tax to support public school education?" September 30, 2016
    238. ↑ Bangor Daily News, "With Question 2, Maine gets higher taxes, same education system that needs improving," October 15, 2016
    239. ↑ CentralMaine.com, "Our Opinion: Question 2 wrong way to raise more school funding," October 30, 2016
    240. ↑ Mount Desert Islander, "Referendum review," November 4, 2016
    241. ↑ Portland Press Herald, "Our View: Maine needs rational pot policy, so vote ‘yes’ on Question 1," October 20, 2016
    242. ↑ The Ellsworth American, "Say 'no' to Question 1," September 9, 2016
    243. ↑ Mount Desert Islander, "Say 'no' to marijuana," September 16, 2016
    244. ↑ Bangor Daily News, "No on 1. It’s not in Maine’s best interests to make it easier to access marijuana," October 14, 2016
    245. ↑ Lowell Sun, "'No' on Question 1," October 26, 2016
    246. ↑ Sentinel & Enterprise, "'No' on Question 1," October 26, 2016
    247. ↑ Harvard Crimson, "Legalize Marijuana Vote Yes on Question 4," October 14, 2016
    248. ↑ Boston Globe, "Just say ‘yes’ on Question 4," October 27, 2016
    249. ↑ The MetroWest Daily News, "Editorial: The time has come for legalization," October 23, 2016
    250. ↑ Boston Herald, "Editorial: No on Question 4," October 26, 2016
    251. ↑ The Harvard Crimson, "Marijuana in Massachusetts," March 22, 2016
    252. ↑ The Boston Globe, "Endorsement: Yes on Question 3," October 17, 2018
    253. ↑ Cape Cod Times, "Vote Yes on Question 3," September 21, 2018
    254. ↑ The Berkshire Eagle, "Our Opinion: Question 3 benefits state's farm animals," October 28, 2018
    255. ↑ Lowell Sun, "No' on Question 3," October 26, 2016
    256. ↑ Sun Current, "Our viewpoint: Vote ‘yes’ on legislative salary amendment," October 7, 2016
    257. ↑ Pioneer Press, "Editorial: Legislators should set their own pay," October 6, 2016
    258. ↑ Post Bulletin, "Our View: Put opinions into action at ballot box," November 1, 2016
    259. ↑ 259.0 259.1 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Editorial: Vote yes on Amendment 3, raising Missouri's tobacco tax," September 25, 2016
    260. ↑ Hannibal Courier-Post, “Courier-Post editorial: Amendments receive mixed reviews,” October 14, 2016
    261. ↑ Herald-Whig, "Only one Missouri ballot measure merits yes vote," October 26, 2016
    262. ↑ The Joplin Globe, "Our view: Tobacco proposals too toxic," October 16, 2016
    263. ↑ Kansas City Business Journal, "Editorial: Don’t let the smoke hide the danger in Amendment 3," October 21, 2016
    264. ↑ The Kansas City Star, "Reject higher Missouri cigarette taxes; approve campaign contribution limits," October 6, 2016
    265. ↑ The St. Louis American, "Vote NO on Amendment 6 and Amendment 3," October 19, 2016
    266. ↑ St. Louis Jewish Light, "It’s Up to You," October 13, 2016
    267. ↑ St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Editorial: Tobacco tax-hike idea designates money for kids, not abortions," February 16, 2016
    268. ↑ St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Editorial: Unacceptable poison pill in tobacco tax initiative," April 21, 2016
    269. ↑ St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Editorial: Yes, yes, yes. No, no. Yes, yes. Our recommendations on the Nov. 8 ballot measures," October 23, 2016
    270. ↑ Hannibal Courier-Post, “Courier-Post editorial: Amendments receive mixed reviews,” October 14, 2016
    271. ↑ Herald-Whig, "Only one Missouri ballot measure merits yes vote," October 26, 2016
    272. ↑ The Kansas City Star, "Reject higher Missouri cigarette taxes; approve campaign contribution limits," October 6, 2016
    273. ↑ The Joplin Globe, "Our view: Tobacco proposals too toxic," October 16, 2016
    274. ↑ Great Falls Tribune, "Sign petition to increase brain research in state," April 16, 2016
    275. ↑ Bozeman Daily Chronicle, "Voters should pass on Marsy’s Law, brain research," October 23, 2016
    276. ↑ Billings Gazette, "Gazette opinion: Bonding unlikely to cure what ails Montana," October 25, 2016
    277. ↑ Great Falls Tribune, "We favor concept of expanding crime victims’ right," February 9, 2016
    278. ↑ Billings Gazette, "Gazette opinion: Montana doesn’t need California law," October 25, 2016
    279. ↑ Bozeman Daily Chronicle, "Voters should pass on Marsy’s Law, brain research," October 23, 2016
    280. ↑ The Missoulian, "Missoulian Editorial: Montana doesn't need Marsy's Law," October 9, 2016
    281. ↑ Elko Daily, "Editorial: Ballot has 5 questions, we have 4 answers," October 20, 2016
    282. ↑ Lahontan Valley News, "Questions 3 & 4 deserve thumbs up," November 1, 2016
    283. ↑ Las Vegas Sun, "Electric customers need options; Question 3 makes way for them," October 18, 2016
    284. ↑ Las Vegas Review-Journal, "Editorial: Ballot questions," October 21, 2016
    285. ↑ Jersey Journal, "Jersey Journal picks for offices, public questions," November 4, 2016
    286. ↑ NJ.com, "Vote Yes on Q-2, the gas tax revenue lockbox | Editorial," October 24, 2016
    287. ↑ Las Vegas Optic, "Vote ‘yes’ on amendment," October 29, 2016
    288. ↑ Sooner Politics, "Editorial: Mostly 'Yes' To State Questions," September 16, 2016
    289. ↑ Muskogee Phoenix, "Editorially Speaking: Vote no on State Question 776," October 29, 2016
    290. ↑ The Oklahoman, "Oklahoma swimming against death penalty tide," August 7, 2016
    291. ↑ Tahlequah Daily Press, "Editorial: Questions 776, 790 should be defeated," October 13, 2016
    292. ↑ Tulsa World, "Tulsa World editorial: State Question 776 accomplishes little and should be rejected," October 18, 2016
    293. ↑ Stillwater News Press, "Our View: Thinking twice about SQ 776," September 14, 2016
    294. ↑ Muskogee Phoenix, "EDITORIALLY SPEAKING: 779 would help fund education," November 1, 2016
    295. ↑ Enid News, "Editorial: The wrong solution to the problem," October 17, 2016
    296. ↑ The Oklahoman, "Recapping our endorsements in the 2016 election," November 6, 2016
    297. ↑ Sooner Politics, "Editorial: Mostly 'Yes' To State Questions," September 16, 2016
    298. ↑ The Daily Astorian, "Endorsement: Measure 96 helps our veterans," October 14, 2016
    299. ↑ The Dalles Chronicle, "Editorial: Mixed vote on state measures," October 29, 2016
    300. ↑ Portland Tribune, "Our Opinion: Judges, stocks, vets get thumbs-up," October 27, 2016
    301. ↑ The Register-Guard, "Election Endorsement: Support veterans," September 30, 2016
    302. ↑ Street Roots, "Street Roots' 2016 endorsements: Ballot measures," October 20, 2016
    303. ↑ Willamette Week, "WW’s Fall 2016 Endorsements: State Measures," October 12, 2016
    304. ↑ The Bend Bulletin, "Editorial: Measure 96 is wrong way to fund veterans services," September 21, 2016
    305. ↑ Corvallis Gazette-Times, "Editorials: Mixed reviews for Measures 96, 100," October 18, 2016
    306. ↑ Corvallis Gazette-Times, "Editorial: Our positions on the state measures," October 24, 2016
    307. ↑ East Oregonian, "Our view: Endorsement overview," November 4, 2016
    308. ↑ Eugene Weekly, "Eugene Weekly's Election Endorsements," October 20, 2016
    309. ↑ Mail Tribune, "Our View: Yes on 98, no on 96 and 99," October 5, 2016
    310. ↑ The Oregonian, "Narrow measures, wide impacts: Editorial Endorsements 2016," September 28, 2016
    311. ↑ Eugene Weekly, "Eugene Weekly's Election Endorsements," October 20, 2016
    312. ↑ The Portland Mercury, "Forcing the Issue: The Mercury’s 2016 Endorsements," October 19, 2016
    313. ↑ Salem Weekly, "Why We Need Measure 97," September 15, 2016
    314. ↑ Street Roots, "Street Roots' 2016 endorsements: Ballot measures," October 20, 2016
    315. ↑ The Bulletin, "Editorial: Tax increase would hit far and wide," June 10, 2016
    316. ↑ Corvallis Gazette-Times, "Editorial: Our positions on the state measures," October 24, 2016
    317. ↑ The Dalles Chronicle, "Editorial: Mixed vote on state measures," October 29, 2016
    318. ↑ East Oregonian, "Our view: Endorsement overview," November 4, 2016
    319. ↑ Mail Tribune, "Our View: Measure 97 is not the right answer," October 9, 2016
    320. ↑ The Oregonian, "Measure 97's false promise of free money: Editorial," November 3, 2016
    321. ↑ Lake Oswego Review, "Our Opinion: Tax will stress family budgets and could affect other requests for funding," July 21, 2016
    322. ↑ Portland Tribune, "Our Opinion: Measure 97 based on deceptions," September 15, 2016
    323. ↑ The Register-Guard, "Editorial: Gross receipts tax: No," October 2, 2016
    324. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Oregon’s Regressive Tax Referendum," August 11, 2016
    325. ↑ Willamette Week, "WW’s Fall 2016 Endorsements: State Measures," October 12, 2016
    326. ↑ The World, "Corp. tax proposal a bad idea," August 9, 2016
    327. ↑ Albany Democrat-Herald, "Editorial: Vote 'yes' on state measures 94, 95," October 13, 2016
    328. ↑ The Bend Bulletin, "Editorial: Vote yes on Measure 95 to give universities better financial tools," September 20, 2016
    329. ↑ Corvallis Gazette-Times, "Editorial: Vote 'yes' on state measures 94, 95," October 17, 2016
    330. ↑ The Daily Astorian, "Endorsement: Universities need the investment options Measure 95 provides," October 14, 2016
    331. ↑ The Dalles Chronicle, "Editorial: Mixed vote on state measures," October 29, 2016
    332. ↑ East Oregonian, "Our view: Endorsement overview," November 4, 2016
    333. ↑ Eugene Weekly, "Eugene Weekly's Election Endorsements," October 20, 2016
    334. ↑ The Mail Tribune, "Our View: Yes on Measures 94, 95, 100," October 4, 2016
    335. ↑ The Oregonian, "Narrow measures, wide impacts: Editorial Endorsements 2016," September 28, 2016
    336. ↑ Portland Tribune, "Our Opinion: Judges, stocks, vets get thumbs-up," October 27, 2016
    337. ↑ The Register-Guard, "Let universities invest," September 27, 2016
    338. ↑ Willamette Week, "WW’s Fall 2016 Endorsements: State Measures," October 12, 2016
    339. ↑ Albany Democrat-Herald, "Editorial: Vote 'yes' on state measures 94, 95," October 13, 2016
    340. ↑ The Bend Bulletin, "Editorial: Vote yes on M94 to stop mandatory retirement for judges," September 21, 2016
    341. ↑ Corvallis Gazette-Times, "Editorial: Vote 'yes' on state measures 94, 95," October 17, 2016
    342. ↑ The Daily Astorian, "Endorsement: Voters should eliminate mandatory judicial retirement," October 14, 2016
    343. ↑ East Oregonian, "Our view: Endorsement overview," November 4, 2016
    344. ↑ Eugene Weekly, "Eugene Weekly's Election Endorsements," October 20, 2016
    345. ↑ The Mail Tribune, "Our View: Yes on Measures 94, 95, 100," October 4, 2016
    346. ↑ The Oregonian, "Narrow measures, wide impacts: Editorial Endorsements 2016," September 28, 2016
    347. ↑ Portland Tribune, "Our Opinion: Judges, stocks, vets get thumbs-up," October 27, 2016
    348. ↑ The Register-Guard, "Ballot Measure 94: Yes," September 26, 2016
    349. ↑ Willamette Week, "WW’s Fall 2016 Endorsements: State Measures," October 12, 2016
    350. ↑ The Dalles Chronicle, "Editorial: Mixed vote on state measures," October 29, 2016
    351. ↑ The Daily Item, "Today's Editorial: Vote 'yes' on judicial retirement age question," November 3, 2016
    352. ↑ Chambersburg Public Opinion, "Ballot proposal gets the cart before the horse," April 8, 2016
    353. ↑ Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "Vote ‘No’ on judges: In plain language — keep their retirement age at 70," October 28, 2016
    354. ↑ Philadelphia Daily News, "DN editorial: Vote 'No' on question to raise judges' retirement age, "October 10, 2016
    355. ↑ The Philadelphia Inquirer, "Inquirer Editorial: Vote 'no' on misleading ballot question raising judges' retirement age," October 12, 2016
    356. ↑ The Scranton Times-Tribune, "‘No’ on court referendum," October 29, 2016
    357. ↑ Rapid City Journal, "OURS: Amendments for victims, schools unnecessary," October 9, 2016
    358. ↑ The Daily News, "Voters' guide to state initiatives," September 15, 2016
    359. ↑ The News Tribune, "We endorse: Earlier redistricting deadline (SJR 8210), and yes on tax advisory votes," October 19, 2016
    360. ↑ The Stranger, "The Stranger's Endorsements for the November 2016 General Election," October 18, 2016
    361. ↑ The News Tribune, "We endorse: Earlier redistricting deadline (SJR 8210), and yes on tax advisory votes," October 19, 2016
    362. ↑ The Stranger, "The Stranger's Endorsements for the November 2016 General Election," October 18, 2016
    363. ↑ The Daily News, "Voters' guide to state initiatives," September 15, 2016
    v • e
    2016 ballot measures
    I&R States
    Non I&R States
    Political topics
    Adult entertainment • Alcohol • Assisted death • Banking • Bond issues • Business regulation • Campaign finance • Civil and criminal trials • Civil rights • Constitutional language • County and municipal governance • Death penalty • Definition of a corporation • Education • Elections and campaigns • Energy • English language • Environment • Firearms • Food and agriculture • Forests and parks • Gambling • Government accountability • Healthcare • Hunting and fishing • Labor and unions • Law enforcement • Lottery • Marijuana • Minimum wage • Prisons • Property • Redistricting • Religion • Salaries of government officials • School choice • State and local government budgets, spending and finance • State executive officials • State judiciary • State legislature • Suffrage • Taxes • Tort law • Transportation • Treatment of animals • Veterans • Wages and pay
    Other
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=2016_ballot_measure_media_endorsements&oldid=8579503"